Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam ... on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/014114]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13274/2022
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Jogau, Post Thobau, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalor.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its
Managing Director, New Power House Road, Jodhpur.
2. The Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Discom, New
Power House Road, Jodhpur.
3. The Zonal Chief Engineer (Barmer Zone), Jodhpur
Discom, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Robin Bhansali for R-1 to 3.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
09/05/2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of
suspension dated 25.03.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that more
than one year has passed after the petitioner was suspended,
therefore, the matter can be disposed of in light of a judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in
2015 (7) Supreme Court Cases, 291, wherein in para No.21,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of
a suspension order should not extend beyond
[2023/RJJD/014114] (2 of 3) [CW-13274/2022]
three months if within this period the
memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not
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
document still 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."
4. 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 RSEB Employees Classification, Control and Appeal
Regulations, 1962, I deem it just and proper to direct the
[2023/RJJD/014114] (3 of 3) [CW-13274/2022]
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 so also the stay petition
stand disposed of.
5. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in
the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
6-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
