Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Panchu Lal Sharma vs State Of Raj And Ors on 18 February, 2010
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2199/10 Panchu Lal Sharma Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 18/02/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Mahendra Sharma, for petitioner
*** Counsel submits that petitioner, who is presently holding the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, on account of a criminal case being registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act, was placed under suspension vide order dt.2nd May, 2003. However, after filing of challan, charge has not been framed so far and trial will take its own time.
At the same time, order of his suspension was revoked vide order dt.27th April, 2009 for limited period from 27th April, 2009 to 8th May, 2009. However, he is facing suspension from 8th May, 2009 onwards. It is nothing but a clear arbitrary exercise of power. He is facing agony of suspension for last 7 yrs. by now.
He although made application for reconsideration U/r.13(5) of the Rules, but the authority has failed to consider the same. He 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 the representation/review of suspension submitted by the employee under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA)Rules, 1958.
Counsel has further placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported in 2005(9)RDD 3962 (Raj.), Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and so also in 2009 WLC [UC]-701, Vishnu Kr. Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. and submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt.10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules.
Without going into merits of the matter at this stage, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of the order of suspension dt.2nd May, 2003 read with order dt.27th April, 2009 before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgments referred to (supra) and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the petitioner and if still he is aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.
With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
FRBOHRA2199CW10 18-2.do