Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Samrath Ram Meena vs State Of Raj & Ors on 3 March, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13776/2010 Samrath Ram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 03/03/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for petitioner.
Counsel submits that petitioner was initially placed under suspension vide order dt. 02/08/2002 (Ann.1) on account of criminal case being registered for offense punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. The said suspension order dt. 02/08/2002 was revoked vide order dt. 20/11/2003 (Anx.2), however, the petitioner was again placed under suspension vide order dt. 09/12/2003 (Anx.3). The suspension was again revoked vide order dt.03/12/2008 (Anx.4) and thereafter was again placed under suspension vide order dt.15/12/2008 (Anx.5), however, it was revoked vide order dt.01/05/2009 (Anx.6) and vide order dt.22/05/2009 (Anx.7) he has been again placed under suspension and he is continuing under suspension since then. Counsel submits that revocation of suspension on various occasions shows that the criminal case registered against petitioner was not considered to be of such a grievous nature which may permit him to continue under suspension. He further submits that criminal case is pending for recording prosecution evidence and the delay in trial is not attributable to him and may take its own course while he is facing agony of suspension for almost 8 years having rolled by now.
Counsel submits that State Government issued a circular dt.07/07/2010 constituting a Committee to consider suspension of such public servants under suspension for last more than three years for review/reconsideration and despite representation made pursuant thereto, the Committee has not taken a decision for review so far.
Counsel further submits that without examining the continuation of suspension as to whether it is required or not, the authorities are blindly invoking the circular of the State Government dt.10th August, 2001 while deciding representation/review of suspension submitted by the employee U/r 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958.
Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State (2009 WLC (UC) 701). Counsel submits that the Circular dt.10/08/2001 issued by State Govt. will not supersede statutory requirement to be complied with by the authority U/r 13(5) of CCA Rules.
Without going into merits, writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for reconsideration/review of the order of suspension pursuant to Circular dt.07/07/2010 before competent authority U/r 13(5) of CCA Rules, who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of judgments (supra) 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/p.3/ 13776-CW-2010-final.doc