Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sanjay Modi vs State Of Raj & Ors on 11 April, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.3577/2010 Sanjay Modi Vs. State of Raj. & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 11/04/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr.Sandeep Sharma, for petitioner Mr.Jinesh Jain, GC, for respondents.
The matter has come up on an application filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief, however, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter has been finally heard at this stage.
The petitioner, while serving as a Junior Engineer and posted in Panchayat Samiti, Chepa Barod, District Baran, on an FIR being registered against him under Section 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, was placed under suspension on 05/12/2006 pursuant to which a consequential order was passed by the authority on 11/12/2006 copies of which have been placed on record as Annexures- 3 & 4 respectively.
Counsel for petitioner submits that in the criminal case registered against the petitioner, the matter is still pending for recording prosecution evidence and the trial will take its own time but at the same time, the petitioner is facing agony of suspension for last more than four years and whatever the delay is being caused in the the trial, the same can in no manner be attributed to the petitioner and it is also not the case of the respondents that the delay is attributable to the petitioner in any manner.
Counsel has placed reliance on judgment of this Court reported in 2005(9)RDD 3962(Raj.), Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 20/09/2005 & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State (2009 WLC (UC) 701). Counsel further submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt. 10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules.
Counsel for petitioner further submits that a Circular has now been issued by the respondents on 07/07/2010 for examining such cases of employees who were under suspension for more than three years by a Committee constituted by the Government and fresh decisions are being taken in regard to the cases of such employees who are facing agony of suspension. Since the petitioner is also under suspension for more than four years, his case may also be examined by the Committee constituted by the Government to examine his continuance of suspension afresh in the light of the circular dt. 07/07/2010 (supra).
There might have been some justification while the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of criminal case being registered against him but after he has faced the agony of suspension for last more than four years and the criminal case is pending and the trial is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence, it may take some time. However, it will open for the authority to examine it afresh as to whether continuance of his suspension still requires in the facts & circumstances of the instant case.
Without going into merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for reconsideration/ review of the order of suspension before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 who may independently examine the same and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the petitioner who if still feels aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Raghu-3577-CW-2010-Final.do