Suresh Khateek Son Of Bhagotya vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2162 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14240/2021
Suresh Khateek Son Of Bhagotya, Aged About 53 Years,
Resident Of Ambedkar Colony, Khairda, Police Station, Mantown,
District Sawai Madhopur, then Nayab Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil
Bhanwara, Additional Charge Of Nayab Tehsildar-Cum- Tehsildar,
Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur. Presently Under
Suspension At Learned Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
       Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2.     The Chairman, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer.
3.     The District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai
       Madhopur (Rajasthan).
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

10/03/2022

1. The matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner.

2. 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 officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is

(2 of 3) [CW-14240/2021]

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."

3. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra)

and in view of Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services

(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, I deem it just and

(3 of 3) [CW-14240/2021]

proper to direct the respondents to 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.

4. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. The stay

application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Jyoti/300

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)