Allowed

Satya Prakash Trivedi v. the M.D. Discom,Jodhpur and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2018CW/3247/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed a writ petition challenging the continuation of the petitioner's suspension. The Court quashed the suspension order issued on 11.05.2016 after noting that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated despite the case being registered for over two years, citing precedent.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 11.05.2016 (Annex.2) quashed and set aside; all consequential benefits allowed to the petitioner.

Satya Prakash Trivedi Vs the M.D. Discom,Jodhpur… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 3247/2018

¶3

Satya Prakash Trivedi S/o Late Shri M.l. Trivedi, by caste Brahman, Resident of Sudharsana Nagar, Bikaner Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Managing Director, Discom, Jodhpur.

¶7

The Secretary Administration, Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur.

¶8

Superintendent Engineer Operations & Maintenance, Jodhpur Discom, Barmer.

¶9

Executive Engineer (O & M) Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Balotra.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Trivedi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Sodha for Mr. Kuldeep Mathur.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶13

Order

¶14

06/08/2018

¶15

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 11.05.2016 (Annex.2), passed by respondents, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension exercising powers under Regulation 9 read with Erstwhile RSEB (CC&A) Regulations, 1962.

¶16

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was suspended on 11.05.2016 in relation to a case, which was registered on 09.05.2016 under the provisions of Sections 7, 13(1)(D) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act of 1988’) and Section 120-B IPC. It is also submitted that despite the fact that more than 2 years and two

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-3247/2018]

¶19

months have passed since the suspension of petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and in view thereof, there is no justification for the respondents to continue the petitioner under suspension. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Yadav Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.: (SBCW No. 8759/2014, decided on 18.12.2015).

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order impugned. It is submitted that the petitioner was found involved in an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1988 and, therefore, he was rightly placed under suspension. Further submissions are made that the petitioner was placed under suspension as he may tamper with the evidence, and, therefore, the order impugned passed does not call for any interference. However, it is fairly submitted that the Department has so far not initiated any departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

Admittedly, the case was registered way back on 09.05.2016 and thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.05.2016 by the impugned order. The purpose for placing any employee under suspension is essentially to prevent him from interfering with the investigation and/or tampering with record. It is an admitted fact that initially the case was registered in the year 2016 and the petitioner was mechanically placed under suspension on 11.05.2016.

¶23

This Court in the case of Om Prakash Yadav (supra) after considering the entire law, in similar circumstances, had quashed the order of suspension holding the same as unwarranted.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-3247/2018]

¶26

In view of above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and tThe order dated 11.05.2016 (Annex.2) is quashed and set aside and all consequential benefits are allowed to the petitioner.

¶27

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶28

a.asopa/-57

Satya Prakash Trivedi v. the M.D. Discom,Jodhpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash Trivedi v. the M.D. Discom,Jodhpur 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

Subhash Vs State of Rajasthan

Binder Singh Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Ram Singh Jodha and Ors. Vs Secretary,Dept.of Education and Ors.

Mahipal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Asha Sharma Vs B.L. Swarnkar

Parbat Singh Vs Raj. State Road Transport Corpn. and Ors.