Allowed

Satyanarayan Meena v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2019CW/14811/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition regarding the petitioner's suspension, directing reinstatement but withholding full status pending the outcome of criminal proceedings, citing departmental circulars as invalid where criminal cases are concluded.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated and posted at a place without public dealing. Question on intervening suspension period to be decided after the criminal case concludes.

Satyanarayan Meena Vs State Rural Develp and… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 14811/2017

¶3

Satyanarayan Meena S/o Shri Ramkaran Meena By Caste Meena, Resident Of Patouli, Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk, At Present Assistant Engineer Panchayat Samiti Khandar District Sawai Madhopur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Government Of Rajast, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director Cum Special Secretary Administration, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Additional Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satyanarayan Meena, present in person.

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramavtar Meena, BDO

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶14

Order

¶15

08/02/2019

¶16

Petitioner states that he was suspended on account of case registered by ACB in relation to the works conducted by the Sarpanch Bonli, where the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer. His suspension order was passed on 29.04.2016 whereafter charge sheet has been filed in January 2017. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing No.2318/2017 wherein the petitioner challenged his continuous

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[CW-14811/2017]

¶19

suspension. The coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:-

¶20

“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ application with reference to the issue of grant of prosecution sanction vide order dated 26th April, 2016 wherein sanction for prosecution has been granted.

¶21

So far as grievance with reference to order dated 24th April, 2016, placing him under suspension, is concerned, learned counsel is allowed to institute an appeal as contemplated under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to institute the appeal, if so advised, within two weeks.

¶22

In case, an appeal is so instituted within the period aforesaid, the Staterespondents/Competent Authority are/is directed to consider and decide the same taking into consideration the law declared by Apex Court of the land in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary V/S Union of India & Anr.:(2015)7 SCC 291, so also the opinion of this Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Gupta V/S State and Ors.: 2009 (1) CDR 504 (Raj.); by a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law; however, in no case later than two months from the date of receipt of the appeal along with a copy of this order.

¶23

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.”

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[CW-14811/2017]

¶26

The petitioner preferred this writ petition as the respondents have issued an order on 23.08.2017 rejecting the representation of the petitioners in terms of the circular issued by the DOP dated 07.07.2010 on the ground that three years have not lapsed from the date of suspension and a decision cannot be taken before the said period.

¶27

Petitioner submits that another Junior Engineer Ram Hans Meena had also been suspended on the ground of similar allegations and in his case the same department vide order dated 19.05.2016 revoked the suspension within a period of one and a half year only.

¶28

On 14.09.2018 this Court had asked the respondents to come forward with the reasons as to why the suspension of the petitioner was not revoked while in other cases which has been revoked. No reasons has come forward except in the reply where again it has been reiterated that as the DOP circular dated 07.07.2010 restricts from considering revocation and suspension before three years, the suspension has not been revoked.

¶29

The Officer In-charge BDO Bonli is present and is unable to assist the Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of petitioner who is present in person. This Court in SBCWP No.4276/2018 Manvendra Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. , decided on 21.12.2018 has laid down as under:-

¶30

“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

¶31

(4 of 5)

¶32

[CW-14811/2017]

¶33

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. 14. 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 07.07.2010 and 12.01.2011 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 the charge sheet having been filed in hurry impinging on the independent power available to the 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.”

¶34

(5 of 5)

¶35

[CW-14811/2017]

¶36

The present case is similar to the aforesaid case thereto the concerned person has been is under suspension on account of the case registered by the ACB.

¶37

Keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate and post the petitioner at a place where he would not be having any public dealing (field posting) and would not be in a position to effect in any manner the witnesses in the criminal case. 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. No costs.

¶38

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶39

R.Vaishnav

¶40

Satyanarayan Meena v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Meena v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati 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

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.

Murari Lal Rawat Vs State of Raj and Anr.

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