Disposed

Bharat Bhushan Goyal v. State of Raj

Rajasthan HC26 May 2018CW/10776/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his suspension order initiated due to custody exceeding 48 hours. The court held it could not set aside the order directly but directed filing a detailed representation to be decided expediently by a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh detailed representation within 10 days; Respondents to consider and decide by reasoned order within 2 months.

Bharat Bhushan Goyal Vs State of Raj — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 10776/2018

¶3

Bharat Bhushan Goyal S/o Shri Dinesh Chand Goyal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o J-301, Mahima Elite, Swej Farm, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Bhushan Goyal, present in person. For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶10

Order

¶11

28/05/2018

¶12

The petitioner has filed instant petition challenging the order of suspension dt.07.04.2016. The order of suspension dt.07.04.2016 was passed by the respondents by invoking power provided under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958 as the petitioner came to be arrested by the Police in a criminal case registered by Anti Corruption Bureau. The petitioner was placed under suspension on account of remaining under Police/judicial custody for more than 48 hours.

¶13

The petitioner who is present in person, has submitted that the Police after investigation has filed charge-sheet on 30.05.2016 and the petitioner is under suspension for more than two years. The petitioner has submitted that he had approached the respondents by filing representation under Rule 13 (5) of

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-10776/2018]

¶16

Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 for revocation of suspension order. The petitioner has submitted that as per Rule 13 (5), the authorities are required to re-look at the suspension order and the same can also be reviewed by the authorities. The petitioner has submitted that the Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, 1958 further provides right of appeal against the suspension order and the authorities are required to take into account different factors for considering the continuance of suspension order. The petitioner has further submitted that the Department of personnel itself has issued circular dt.23.02.2015 where instructions have been issued to consider revocation of suspension by the authorities.

¶17

The petitioner has also placed on record the copy of order dt.10.01.1018 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.24254/2017 [Karishna Kanhaiya Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan] wherein the Court considering the circular dt.23.02.2015 has disposed of the writ petition by giving direction to the petitioner to file a comprehensive/detailed representation against the suspension order and the authorities were directed to consider and decide the said representation by a reasoned and speaking order as per law.

¶18

I have heard the petitioner present in person.

¶19

The petitioner who is under suspension since 07.04.2016 has already approached the respondents by filing representation dt.26.04.2018, however, no decision has been taken by the respondents on the said representation.

¶20

This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot set aside the order of suspension dt.07.04.2016 as the same was passed by the respondents by invoking Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and the petitioner was deem to have been

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CW-10776/2018]

¶23

suspended due to remaining under Police/judicial custody for more than 48 hours.

¶24

The petitioner has liberty to approach the respondents to reconsider his continuance under suspension and if his case is covered for consideration as per circular dt.23.02.2015, the respondents have to take final view of the matter expeditiously.

¶25

This Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive/detailed representation against the suspension order dt.07.04.2016 within a period of ten days and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the said representation by a reasoned and speaking order as per law. The representation so filed may be decided expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶26

With the aforesaid observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ petition as well as stay application stands disposed of.

¶27

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶28

A.Kumar/57

Bharat Bhushan Goyal v. State of Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Bhushan Goyal v. State of Raj

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

Sandeep Kumar Rajput Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kapil Kumar Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anuradha Tiwari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State Education Department Ors.

Manju Vs State Education Department Ors.

Munesh Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.