Rajasthan High Court
Chetan Prakash S/O Pyarelal ... vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam ... on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10673/2020
Chetan Prakash S/o Pyarelal Raiger, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Village Udharna, Post-Chandeli, Tehsil-Deoli, District Tonk, (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jvvnl), Through Its
Managing Director Registered Office - Vidyut Bhawan,
Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur-302005
2. Superintending Engineer (O And M.), Jaipur Discom,
Distt-Tonk,(Raj.) Mahadevwali Road, Behind Circuit
House, Tonk (Raj.)
3. Executive Engineer (O And V), Jvvnl, Jaipur Discom,
Deoli, Distt-Tonk (Raj.)
4. Assistant Engineer (O And M) Jaipur Discom, Deoli, Distt-
Tonk (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain.
For Respondent(s) : None.
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
(2 of 3) [CW-10673/2020]
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."
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), I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to
(3 of 3) [CW-10673/2020]
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.
5. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the
respondent No.1.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/258
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
