Allowed

Murari Lal Rawat v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2019CW/10898/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the petitioner's writ petition for quashing his suspension. Relying on a prior judgment, the court disregarded the departmental circular requiring a three-year wait for reinstatement, directing the respondents to revoke suspension and post the petitioner at a non-sensitive location pending the criminal case outcome.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the petitioner is revoked; petitioner to be posted at a place without public dealings; entitled to pay fixation upon reinstatement; intervening period of suspension subject to another or

Murari Lal Rawat Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 10898/2018

¶3

Murari Lal Rawat Son Of Shri Bhagwan Das Rawat, By Caste Brahman, Resident Of 71/158A, Paramhans Marg, Mansarover, District Jaipur Rajasthan The Then Assistant Engineer, Water Shed Development And Soil Conservation, Srimadhopur, District Sikar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Department Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Additional Chief Se

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Murari Lal Rawat, petitioner present in person. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mohan Lal Sharma, OIC, Section Officer, DOP, Secretariat, Jaipur present.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

08/02/2019

¶13

The petitioner is holding the post of Junior Engineer, in Agriculture Department, Govt. of Rajasthan and he was placed under suspension on having remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours vide order dated 12.2.2016 w.e.f. 20.12.2015. He is under suspension since then continuously. He moved a representation to the respondents but no action was taken. Thereafter he preferred a writ petition against the said suspension being SBCW Pet. No.2160/2018 before this court whereby this court directed him to make a representation vide order dated

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CW-10898/2018]

¶16

2.2.2018. Thereafter the petitioner moved a representation again but same was rejected vide impugned order dated 7.5.2018 primarily on the ground that circular dated 7.7.2010 does not allow the reinstatement before completion of three years in cases relating to offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶17

The petitioner has cited instances where there has been a departure with regard to three years period. He also relies upon the judgment passed by this court in Manvendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan ( SBCW Pet. No.4276/2018 ) decided on 21.12.2018 wherein this court has held as under:

¶18

“13. Technically in backdrop thereto, if we examine the circulars issued by the department, it has uniformly placed all the Government servants in such a situation where for no good reason, if a person has been suspended and even in the cases where allegations are under Section 7 of the PC Act and not a case where person has been alleged to have received bribe, the person has to wait for three years till his case can be taken up or made or one year after the charge-sheet is filed for seeking revocation.

¶19

As noticed in the aforesaid judgments, it is a settled law that suspension cannot be used as a tool for punishing a person. It is not a punitive action at all. However, its ramifications which affect the moral of the concerned individual servant, his status in the society is also seriously affected. There is no time limitation for disposal of the criminal case after the charge sheet is filed. In a criminal case the yardstick adopted by the State Government for examining revocation of suspension only after one year does not seem to have any basis. The circular issued by the State Government dated 7.7.2010 and 12.1.2011 so far as it lays down the limitation to examine the revocation of suspension order after a period of three years from the date of suspension and after a period of one year from the date of charge sheet having been filed in hurry impinging on the independent power available to the

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CW-10898/2018]

¶22

disciplinary authority as well as to the appellate authority under the Rules of 1958 and to that extent the circulars deserve to be ignored by considering the application seeking clarification under Section 13(5) of the CCA Rules of 1958 or while considering an appeal under rule 22 of the rules of 1958.

¶23

The disciplinary authority/appellate authority has to consider independently the facts & circumstances nature of offence alleged, circumstances in a given case and also whether keeping the person under suspension would be necessary for the purpose of continuance of the case. In other words, if the concerned individual is likely to affect the departmental proceedings or the criminal case pending before the authority or the court by influencing the witnesses, then the suspension may be continued, otherwise the departmental authorities ought to have taken into consideration that 50%/75% of the salary is being pagid to a suspended employee by way of subsistence allowance without taking any work from him. Thus, the concerned person is receiving amount without work. There is other aspect if the concerned authorities are of the view that such a person on account of his alleged misconduct departmental or criminal, is likely to affect the atmosphere of the Officer where he is posted, a decision can always be taken to post the said individual at a different place or transfer him to some other place so that he cannot in any manner disturb or affect the working at other place. Such individual against whom departmental action is being sought to ble taken and are reinstated ought not be placed in sensitive posting place. They ought to be given work wherein there is no direct public involvement and they should continue to work at such place till a verdict is given by competent court deciding the criminal case or in the departmental enquiry.

¶24

16…..

¶25

….

¶26

However, keeping in view the observations made herein above, the respondents are directed to post the petitioner at a place where he would not be having any public dealings and would not be in a position to affect in any manner the witnesses in the criminal case. If so required, the petitioner may be posted in any other District than Sawai Madhopur under the same range.

¶27

With the said observations, the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The question regarding intervening period of suspension shall be decided only after the decision of the

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CW-10898/2018]

¶30

criminal case. However, the petitioner would be entitled for pay fixation upon his reinstatement.”

¶31

Heard the representative/s of the State Government who reiterate/s that they are bound by the circular dated 7.7.2010. 4. Accordingly, in view of above, this court finds that the present case stands covered by the observations made herein above in Manvendra Singh’s case (supra). Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The suspension of the petitioner is revoked. The question regarding intervening period of suspension shall be decided only after the decision of the criminal case. However, the petitioner would be entitled for pay fixation upon his reinstatement.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶34

Sandeep/-157

Murari Lal Rawat v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Lal Rawat v. State of Raj and Anr.

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

Official Liquidator of M/S Lok Vs Shri Lokesh Kumar Singh and or

Sher Singh Saini Son of Shri Banwari Lal Saini Vs Union of India

Alam Singh S/O Girdhari B/C Dhakar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Harvir Singh Vs Union of India New Delhi and Ors.

Subodh Kumar Jain, Son of Shri Madan Lal Jain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan Meena Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.