Munnu Lal Maurya S/O Late Paltu ... vs The Food Corporation Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2153 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3578/2022
Munnu Lal Maurya S/o Late Paltu Prasad Maurya, Aged About 35
Years, R/o House No. 302 Near Ram Mandir Piprayli Bujurg
Gorkhapur District Gorkahpur Uttar Pradesh (Presently Serving
At Food Corporation Of India)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     The Food Corporation Of India, Through Its General
       Manager Regional Office Jaipur.
2.     The   Divisional        Manager        Food      Corporation     Of   India,
       Division Officer Alwar.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Sheoran

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

10/03/2022

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. O.P. Sheoran, learned counsel accepts notices on behalf

of the respondents.

The matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Ajay Kumar

Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Reported in 2015(7)

Supreme Court Cases, 291 in para No.21 has held as under:-

"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent

(2 of 3) [CW-3578/2022]

officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adquately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."

In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India

(supra), I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to

(3 of 3) [CW-3578/2022]

consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension

within a period of 60 days by passing a speaking and reasoned

order strictly in accordance with law. However, the petitioner is at

liberty to file fresh writ petition if need so arises.

Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. The

stay application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Upendra/320

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)