Rajasthan High Court
Ramprasad Meena Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 October, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14602/2022
Ramprasad Meena Son Of Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 52
Years, Resident Of Village Mithod, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, De-
partment Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretar-
iat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Head Of Forest (Hoff), Ayanya Bhawan, Jhalana
Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Chief Conservator Of Forest (Ccf), Officer Kota, Dis-
trict Kota (Raj.).
4. Deputy Conservator Of Forest (Dcf), Kota District Kota
(Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balveer Singh Beniwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
30/09/2022
1. The matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choud-
hary 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 be-
yond three months if within
this period the memorandum
of charges/charge-sheet is not
served on the delinquent offi-
cer/employee; if the memo-
randum of charges/charge-
(2 of 3) [CW-14602/2022]
sheet is served, a reasoned or-
der must be passed for the ex-
tension of the suspension. As
in the case in hand, the Gov-
ernment is free to transfer the
person concerned to any de-
partment in any of its offices
within or outside the State so
as to sever any local or per-
sonal contact that he may
have and which he may mis-
use for obstructing the investi-
gation against him. The Gov-
ernment may also prohibit him
from contacting any person, or
handling records and docu-
ments till the stage of his hav-
ing to prepare his defence. We
think this will adquately safe-
guard the universally recog-
nised principle of human dig-
nity and the right to a speedy
trial and shall also preserve
the interest of the Government
in the prosecution. We recog-
nise that the previous Consti-
tution Benches have been re-
luctant to quash proceedings
on the grounds of delay, and
to set time-limits to their dura-
tion. However, the imposition
of a limit on the period of sus-
pension has not been dis-
cussed in prior case law, and
would not be contrary to the
interests of justice. Further-
more, the direction of the Cen-
tral Vigilance Commission that
pending a criminal investiga-
tion, 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 (Classifi-
cation, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, I deem it just and proper to
direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
(3 of 3) [CW-14602/2022]
revocation of suspension within a period of 60 days by passing a
speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. How-
ever, 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 /241
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
