Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Kumar Chanda vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 October, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:34635]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15157/2023
Dinesh Kumar Chanda S/o Shri Ramji Lal Meena, Aged About 33
Years, Resident of 617, Jhalana Jagatpura Road, Opposite
Shamshan Ghat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director cum Joint Secretary, Directorate Local Self
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
3. Municipal Board, Khatushyamji, District Sikar (Rajasthan),
through the Executive Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani with
Mr. Manoj Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
12/10/2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 27.12.2022 (Annex.2), whereby the petitioner has been
placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing
the suspension order dated 27.12.2022 (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
upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the
[2023:RJ-JD:34635] (2 of 3) [CW-15157/2023]
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."
Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty
[2023:RJ-JD:34635] (3 of 3) [CW-15157/2023]
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 27.12.2022 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 No.2-
Director cum Joint Secretary, Directorate Local Self Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
255-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
