Petitioners seeking withdrawal of writ petitions against suspension orders, claiming right to appeal. Bench held suspension appeals can be filed immediately and appellate authority must decide merits without refusal based on time elapsed.
All writ petitions disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file appeal under Rule 22 of Rules of 1958.
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. 424/2022
Ramdhan S/o Kalyan Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o VillPeeplya, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan At Present Posted As Head Constable No. 210 (Suspended) Reserve Police Line Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 470/2022
Meethalal Meena S/o Bajrnglal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Vll Khidharpur, Teh Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan At Present Posted As Head Constable No. 261 (Suspended) Reserve Police Line Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1125/2022
Bhanwar Singh S/o Satynarayan Singh, Aged About 43 Years,
(2 of 6)
[CW-424/2022]
R/o Vill- Lamba Harisingh, Teh-Malpura, District Tonk Rajasthan At Present Posted As Constable No. 1007 (Suspended) Reserve Police Line Tonk, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1893/2022
Premraj S/o Bhanwar Lal Solanki, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No. 167, Hare Krishana Colony, Sawai Madhopur Road, Tonk (Raj.) At Present Posted As Constable No. 939 (Suspended) Reserve Police Line Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 36/2022
Ravi Meena S/o Sh. Bharat Lal Meena, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of F-5 2Nd Floor, Somya Sky Crown, Near Akshay Patra, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
(3 of 6)
[CW-424/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1723/2022
Sumer Singh S/o Ram Shaya, Aged About 44 Years, R/o VillChak Havibawala, Tehsil And District Dausa Rajasthan At Present Posted As Head Constable No. 173 (Suspended) Reserve Police Line Bhiwadi, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav and Mr. Mohit Khandelwal through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG and Mr. Rupin Kala, GC through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
14/02/2022
(4 of 6)
[CW-424/2022]
Learned counsels for the petitioners want to withdraw these writ petitions filed against the orders placing them under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1958’) with liberty to file an appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 theiragainst.
Mr. S.S. Raghav, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rupin Kala, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that order of suspension cannot be reviewed/appealed against before the expiry of period as mentioned in the Circular dated 07.07.2010 in cases where a delinquent has been placed under suspension on account of criminal cases.
Heard and considered.
A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, vide its order dated 18.02.2015 passed in SBCWP No.6388/2014: Jagraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., while considering the Circular dated 07.07.2010, held as under:
“Be that as it may, the question is as to whether the respondents could refuse to decide the statutory appeal provided under the rules. Rule 22 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958 reads as under:-
“Rule 22. - Appeals against orders of suspension:- A Government Servant may appeal against an order of suspension to the authority to which the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order, is immediately subordinate.”
A perusal of the above rule shows that a statutory appeal has been provided under the rules. Moreover, the consideration of the appeals is dealt with in Rule 30(1) of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958, which reads:-
(5 of 6)
[CW-424/2022]
“Rule 30. - Consideration of Appeals:- (1) In the case of appeals against an order of suspension, the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 13 and having regard to the circumstances of the case the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly.”
In the above rule, the work used is “shall consider” making it incumbent upon the appellate authority to decide the appeal against the order of suspension. After considering, it can either revoke or confirm the order of suspension but under no circumstances refuse to decide the appeal.
On the other hand, a perusal of the Circulars dated 12.01.2011 and 07.07.2010 shows that the same deal only with cases wherein a challan has not been filed till three years or in case, one year has passed after the filling of the challan. A perusal of both the circulars does not in any way specify that the case of a suspended employee cannot be considered before three years. There is no bar for filing the appeal prior to three years. In fact, a perusal of the above rules shows that there is no time limit provided for filing the said appeal and the same can always be filed immediately after the order of suspension is passed. Thereafter, the appeal has to be decided on merits after considering the objections and arguments raised by the suspended employee. In fact, the circulars give a right to even those cases to be reviewed after a lapse of three years, whose appeals against suspension order may have already been rejected. The committee is required to review the suspension order taking into consideration the long period of suspension having undergone by an employee with the final outcome of the F.I.R. still very far off and not anywhere being finalized in the near future. The said circulars are, in fact, complimentary to the rules and in no way to deprive the right granted to a suspended employee under the said rules to hear his appeal.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority along with certified copy of the order on 27.02.2015 at 4.00 P.M., who shall decide the appeal of the petitioner within a period of one month therefrom in accordance with law.”
(6 of 6) [CW-424/2022]
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.186/2016 preferred by the State of Rajasthan and Ors. against the order dated 18.02.2015 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2016. In view thereof, the objection raised by the learned counsels for the respondents is not sustainable.
Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to assail the orders of suspension under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958. If any such appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall endeavour to decide the same vide speaking order expeditiously.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/83-86, 82 & 270
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suspension orders can be challenged under the Rules of 1958 before the expiry of the period mentioned in the Circular dated 07.07.2010.
Whether the respondents could refuse to decide the statutory appeal against orders of suspension before three years under the Circulars.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶70
SBCWP No.6388/2014: Jagraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
State of Rajasthan and Ors.Followed¶81
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.186/2016
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramdhan
Meethalal Meena
Bhanwar Singh
Premraj
Ravi Meena
Sumer Singh
Mahendhar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
