The Rajasthan High Court directed respondents to review a suspension order within four weeks via reasoned order, citing Supreme Court precedent limiting suspension duration.
Directed respondents to review the suspension order dated 13.08.2019 within four weeks via reasoned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1184/2021
Abdul Karim S/o Sh. Abdul Rashid Khan, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 79, Dallo Ka Mohalla, Chaksu, District, Jaipur, (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
08/12/2021
The matter comes up on an application (1/2021) seeking disposal of the writ petition in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2015(7) SCC 291 .
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.
In case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), their Lordships held as under:
“21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to
(2 of 2)
[CW-1184/2021]
transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adquately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”
In view thereof as also in view of Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to review the suspension order dated 13.08.2019 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, vide reasoned order.
The writ petition as also the application stand disposed of accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/25
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension order should be reviewed in light of the Supreme Court judgment and Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶13
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2015(7) SCC 291 · Who else cites this
Abdul Karim
State Of Rajasthan
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
