Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yagya Datt Viduwa vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/014679]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5674/2023
Yagya Datt Viduwa S/o Bipin Bihari Viduwa, Aged About 58
Years, R/o 16, Ganesh Vihar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Joint Secretary, Department
of Personnel (K-3/complain), Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Assistant Secretary, Department of Personnel
(K-3/complain), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Public Works Department (PWD),
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD),
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
11/05/2023
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
served on the delinquent officer/employee; if
the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is
[2023/RJJD/014679] (2 of 3) [CW-5674/2023]
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."
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(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
[2023/RJJD/014679] (3 of 3) [CW-5674/2023]
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
61-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
