Kapil Kothari vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1459 Raj

[2023/RJJD/004309]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14692/2018

Kapil Kothari S/o Mitha Lal Kothari, Aged About 33 Years, 24-A, Trimurti Complex, Manwakhera Road, Sector-4, Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Information Technology And Communication, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Inspector General, Registration And Stamp Panjiyan Bhawan, Lohagal, Janana Hospital Road, Ajmer.

3. The Dy. Inspector General, Registration And Stamp, Panjiyan Bhawan, Hazareshwar Colony, Udaipur.

4. The Sub-Registrar Ii, Registration And Stamp, 20, Hazareshwar Colony, Udaipur.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :       Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
For Respondent(s)            :       Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG & Sr.Advocate
                                     assisted by Mr. Akhsiti Singhvi
                                     Mr. Dharmendra Rathore

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

07/02/2023

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 07.08.2018 (Annex.-2) passed by the

respondents, whereby the petitioner has been placed under

suspension exercising powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was suspended on 07.08.2018 w.e.f.

25.07.2018 in relation to a case, which was registered on

[2023/RJJD/004309] (2 of 3) [CW-14692/2018]

27.07.2018 under provisions of Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988'). It is

also submitted that prosecution sanction was also granted way

back on 05.08.2019 and despite the fact that more than 4½ years

have passed since the suspension of the petitioner, no disciplinary

proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and in view

thereof, there is no justification for the respondents to continue to

keep the petitioner under suspension.

Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Om

Prakash Yadav v. The State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 8759/2014,

decided on 18.12.2015 & in Samrath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8249/2007, decide don

30.09.2009.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported

the order impugned. It was submitted that the petitioner was

found involved in offence punishable under the provisions of the

Act of 1988 and remained in police custody for more than 48

hours, therefore, he was rightly placed under suspension. Further

submissions were made that the petitioner has been placed under

suspension as he may temper with the evidence and, therefore,

the order impugned passed does not call for any interference.

However, it was fairly submitted that the Department has so far

not initiated any departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Admittedly, the case was registered way back on

27.07.2018, prosecution sanction was granted on 05.08.2019 and

the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 07.08.2018 by

[2023/RJJD/004309] (3 of 3) [CW-14692/2018]

the impugned order. The purpose for placing any employee under

suspension essentially is to prevent him from interfering with the

investigation and/or tempering with record. The fact that initially

the case was registered in the year 2018 and the prosecution

sanction had already been granted against the petitioner based on

the investigation having been undertaken by the police. This case

is clearly out of prolonged suspension.

This Court in the case of Om Prakash Yadav (supra) and

Samrath Singh (supra) after considering the entire law, in similar

circumstances, had quashed the order of suspension holding the

same as unwarranted.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the

petitioner is allowed. The suspension order dated 07.08.2018

(Annex.-2) is revoked with immediate prospective effect. All other

benefits, which are admissible to the petitioner, shall be decided

by the respondents strictly in accordance with law.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

28-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)