Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Chhangani vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 September, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:29350]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12489/2018
Jagdish Chhangani S/o Shri Pukhraj Chhangani, Aged About 50
Years, Ravto Ki Gali, Gundhi Ka Mohalla, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Urban Development, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat with
Ms. Saloni Malpani
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
13/09/2023
1. The matter comes up for consideration of the application
under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, which has been
filed by the respondent - State on 12.12.2018 seeking vacation of
the interim order passed by this Court on 07.09.2018.
2. Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State submitted that the petitioner has been placed
under suspension in exercise of power under Sub-rule (2) of Rule
13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of
1958'), because he had remained behind the bars for a period of
more than 48 hours from 01.06.2017.
[2023:RJ-JD:29350] (2 of 4) [CW-12489/2018]
3. Learned counsel submitted that the mandate of Rule 13(2) of
the Rules of 1958 is that an incumbent is deemed to be suspended
as and when he has been sent behind the bars and even formal
order is not necessary in the face of the deeming fiction provided
in the provision. She submitted that even if the best case of the
petitioner is considered, he may get some relief to the extent of
retrospectivity of the order, as the same has been made effective
from 01.06.2017, though the order of suspension was passed on
29.06.2018.
4. While contending that the position of law as laid down by this
Court in the case of Samrath Singh vs. State of Rajsthan
reported in 2010(1) WLC (Raj.) 562, may not be applicable in
the present case, she submitted that the interim order passed by
this Court deserves to be vacated and alternatively argued that
the petitioner cannot claim immunity from the suspension at least
for the period after the order of suspension was passed.
5. Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has been placed under suspension
on account of his imprisonment on 01.06.2017. Whereas, the
respondents placed him under suspension after about a year (on
29.06.2018). Such belated exercise of powers is against the spirit
of the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1958, particularly
when no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that a negative Final
Report has been filed by the police and the same has been
accepted, so far as the FIR pursuant whereof the petitioner was
apprehended. He further submitted that all the similarly situated
[2023:RJ-JD:29350] (3 of 4) [CW-12489/2018]
persons including the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation
have been reinstated by the State and their suspension orders
have been revoked in light of the negative Final Report submitted
by the police.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that no purpose would be
served by disposing of the writ petition, particularly when the
petitioner's order of suspension has remained in abeyance for
more than five years. He added that in any case, since negative
Final Report has been filed and the suspension of the similarly
situated persons have been revoked, the respondent-State cannot
justifiably keep the petitioner under suspension. The order of
suspension be, therefore, declared illegal, in the changed
circumstance.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on record and applicable law, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner's best case is to the extent
of retrospectivity given to his suspension, that too in light of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Samrath Singh (supra).
9. But in any case, after or from the date of the suspension
order (29.06.2018), the suspension cannot be said to be illegal.
10. Be that as it may.
11. Considering that the petitioner's suspension has remained in
abeyance for the last five years, the present writ petition is
disposed of while giving the petitioner a liberty to move the
competent authority by way of a representation seeking
revocation of his suspension for the reasons to be given in the
representation.
[2023:RJ-JD:29350] (4 of 4) [CW-12489/2018]
12. The petitioner shall be free to file the representation before
the competent authority alongwith documentary evidence showing
that suspension of other similarly situated persons have been
revoked on the basis of negative Final Report having been filed by
the police and any other relevant law.
13. In case, any such representation is filed by 30.09.2023, the
competent authority shall consider petitioner's request for
revocation of suspension in light of provisions of Rule 13(2) of the
Rules of 1958.
14. The requisite order under the Rules of 1958 so also under
Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 be passed within a
period of four weeks of receiving petitioner's representation.
15. As the petitioner's suspension has remained in abeyance for
the last five years, this Court deems it appropriate to order that
until the petitioner's representation is decided by the competent
authority and appropriate decision is taken thereupon, the
suspension of the petitioner shall remain in abeyance. In other
words, the petitioner shall not be placed under suspension, simply
because of the disposal of the present writ petition.
16. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
52-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
