Disposed

Ramesh Chand Khatik Son of Shri Harji Lal Khatik, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Aug 2021CW/1627/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning the suspension of the petitioner, the High Court directed the respondents to consider revoking the suspension within 60 days based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider revocation of suspension within 60 days by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

Ramesh Chand Khatik Son of Shri Harji Lal Khatik… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1627/2021

¶4

Ramesh Chand Khatik Son Of Shri Harji Lal Khatik, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Gothiyana, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer (Raj)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Panchayatiraj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Ajmer (Raj)

¶9

Development And Programe Officer, Panchayat Samiti Arain, District Ajmer (Raj)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swaraj Panwar For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order

¶13

25/08/2021

¶14

The matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner.

¶15

The Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Reported in 2015(7) Supreme Court Cases, 291 in para No.21 has held as under:-

¶16

“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 transfer the person concerned to any department

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

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.”

¶19

In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra) and in view of Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, I deem it just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension within a period of 60 days by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

with law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh writ

¶22

petition if need so arises.

¶23