Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Subhash Saharan vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:44754)
2023 Latest Caselaw 11039 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 11039 Raj
Judgement Date : 20 December, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Subhash Saharan vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:44754) on 20 December, 2023

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:44754]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18619/2023

Subhash Saharan S/o Raja Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Village
Mehammedpuriya            Post      Balasar       Tehsil      Raniya    Dist.    Sirsa
(Haryana).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Deputy Secretary To
         Government (K-3/complaint), Department Of Personnel,
         Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2.       The Secretary, Agriculture Marketing Department, Pant
         Krishi      Bhawan,         Vaniki        Path,       C-Scheme,        Jaipur
         (Rajasthan).
3.       The      Director,       Directorate      Of     Agriculture    Marketing,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Sunil Purohit.
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
                                    Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

20/12/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 16.03.2023 (Annex.2), whereby the petitioner has been

placed under suspension.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after

passing the suspension order dated 16.03.2023 (Annex.2), neither

any chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner nor any

disciplinary inquiry has been initiated by the respondents. In

support of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies

[2023:RJ-JD:44754] (2 of 3) [CW-18619/2023]

upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the

case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) &

Ors., reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 and the observations of the

Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Jahangir Ali Khan Vs. The

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.662/2022), wherein on 25.05.2022, the following order was

passed:-

"The law declared by the Supreme Court, binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India on all Courts and the Tribunals, is that the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent employee. If on facts it is found that charge sheet has not been filed in criminal case or memorandum of charges, n the event the department decides to hold departmental inquiry, has not been issued within three months, the suspension order would come to an automatic end. On facts of the present case, it is clear that initially the suspension order was issued on31.03.2021, declaring deemed suspension w.e.f. 17.03.2021 on account of arrest and detention for more than 48 hours. The same was challenged before this Court and the appellant was allowed to make representation. The representation was rejected on 10.01.2022 i.e. almost after ten months of the deemed suspension. The order nowhere refers to issuance of any memorandum of charges in any departmental enquiry initiated by the department much less filing of charge sheet in the Criminal Court relating to the offences in connection with which deemed suspension had taken place. On aforesaid factual aspects, which are not in dispute, the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not warrant continuance of the order of suspension. This extra-ordinary situation was taken into consideration by the Tribunal to stay the order of suspension. All the Courts and Tribunals are bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Since the order passed by the Tribunal is based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, we find that the order could not be interfered with only on the ground that it was ex parte or passed 10 months after the suspension order was issued."

[2023:RJ-JD:44754] (3 of 3) [CW-18619/2023]

Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

and of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty

to approach the respondents by way of filing a detailed

representation and prays that the respondents may be directed to

consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension

order dated 16.03.2023 within a stipulated period of time from the

date of filing such representation.

Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, the present

writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event of

filing such representation by the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1

& 2 shall consider the same keeping in mind the law laid down by

this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-

mentioned cases and pass an appropriate order within a period of

four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, strictly

in accordance with law.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

780-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter