The High Court directed respondents to consider revoking the petitioner's suspension within 60 days by passing a reasoned order, citing Supreme Court limits on suspension duration.
Directing respondents to consider revocation of suspension within 60 days via a speaking and 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. 160/2021
Mool Chand Meena S/o Shri Chittarmal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Ukeri, Tehsil Reni, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order
25/08/2021
Supreme Court Cases, 291 in para No.21 has 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
(2 of 3)
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 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Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”
I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the
(3 of 3)
case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension within a period of 60 days by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file
fresh writ petition if need so arises.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra Pratap Singh/305
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's suspension order violates the Supreme Court direction limiting suspension to three months without a charge sheet or reasoned order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶17
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Reported in 2015(7) Supreme Court Cases, 291
Mool Chand Meena
Managing Director, Jaipur Vihdyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Secretary (Administration), Jaipur Vihdyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Chief Engineer, Jaipur Vihdyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Superintending Engineer (O And M), Jaipur Vihdyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Assistant Engineer (O And M) Jaipur Vihdyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
