In a civil writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court directed respondent authorities to revoke the suspension of the petitioner within 60 days, relying on the Supreme Court's guidelines regarding suspension duration and a specific government rule.
Direction to respondents to consider revocation of suspension within 60 days.
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. 6356/2020
Smt. Sudha Yadav W/o Shri Bharat Singh Yadav, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Near Chanda Room Phatak, Taparia Dal Mill Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.) Presently Posted At Headquarters Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Chandel
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 memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case
[CW-6356/2020]
(2 of 3)
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.”
[CW-6356/2020]
(3 of 3)
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
CHARU SONI /282
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct a time limit for the revocation of the petitioner's suspension in light of Supreme Court guidelines.
Whether a suspension order extending beyond three months requires a reasoned order and service of charge-sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶4
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Reported in 2015(7) Supreme Court Cases, 291
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sudha Yadav
State Of Rajasthan
The Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
