Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Mohan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 October, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:35105]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16158/2023
Dr. Mohan Singh S/o Shri Mordhwaj Jat, Aged About 39 Years, R/
o Khuni Mohalla, Thoon, Bharatpur 321205 (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Govt.
Medical And Health Department, Secretariate, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Dy. Secretary To Govt., Department Of Personnel (K-
3/complaint) Secretariate, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthay
Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya (through
VC)
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
13/10/2023
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 served, a reasoned order
must be passed for the extension of the suspension.
As in the casein 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 documents till the stage of his having to
prepare his defence. We think this will adequate
safeguard the universally recognised principle of
[2023:RJ-JD:35105] (2 of 2) [CW-16158/2023]
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
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
stands 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
53-/Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
