Rajasthan High Court
Jitendra Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 18 October, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15424/2022
Jitendra Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Laxminarayan, Aged About
58 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 13, Bada Bazar, Atru, District
Baran (Raj.) Presently Village Development Officer Gram
Panchayat Atru/sakatpur, District Baran (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Personal, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Baran (Raj.)
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran (Raj.)
5. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Atru, District
Baran (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
18/10/2022
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
(2 of 3) [CW-15424/2022]
served on the delinquent
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)
(3 of 3) [CW-15424/2022]
and in view of Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, I deem it just and
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
Upendra Pratap Singh /277
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
