Disposed

Shyam Sunder v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2010CW/2913/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a suspended Head Constable facing corruption charges for nearly six years, challenged his continued suspension without trial. The High Court directed the authority to make a fresh independent inquiry under Rule 13(5) under the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958, unbound by the 2001 State Government circular.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of suspension under Rule 13(5); authority to pass speaking order within three months independently of the 2001 circular.

Shyam Sunder Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

[1]

¶2

CW 2913/2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2913/2010

¶5

Shyam Sunder Versus State & Ors.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER : 04/03/2010

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

¶8

Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for petitioner

¶9

¶10

Petitioner while holding the post of Head Constable, was placed under suspension vide order dt.26^th June, 2004 on account of a criminal case being registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act in exercise of powers U/r.13 of the Rules, 1958. Counsel submits that after filing of challan, charge has not been framed so far and trial will take its own time. Petitioner is facing agony of suspension for almost six years by now.

¶11

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.

¶12

CW 2913/2010 [2]

¶13

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.

¶14

Without going into merits of the matter at this stage, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioners to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of the order of suspension dt.26^th June, 2004 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 10^th 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.

¶15

With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶16

[AJAY RASTOGI], J.

¶17

FRBOHRA2913CW2010 04-03.doc

Shyam Sunder v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panna Lal Kumawat Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ishwar Prasad and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shasi Rani Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramji Lal Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Banwari Lal Vs the Urban Development Housing

Ramji Lal Gurjar Vs Jaipur Municipal Corp and Anr.