Allowed

Rajendra Kumar S/O Bhagwan Singh v. Director, Secondary Education

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2022CW/7006/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this service suspension matter, the High Court of Rajasthan directed relevant education authorities to revoke the petitioner's suspension within 30 days, citing Supreme Court orders mandating suspension limits of three months to protect human dignity and ensure a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to consider revocation of suspension within 30 days by passing a reasoned spokeing order.

Rajendra Kumar S/O Bhagwan Singh Vs Director… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7006/2022

¶3

Rajendra Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh, Resident Of Village And Post Sundrawali, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶7

District Education Officer, (Head Quarter), Secondary Education, Dholpur.

¶8

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.Zakawat Ali, AGC

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶10

Order

¶11

02/11/2022

¶12

The matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner.

¶13

The Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Reported in 2015(7)

¶14

Supreme Court Cases, 291 in para No.21 has held as under:-

¶15

“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 in any of its offices within or

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-7006/2022]

¶18

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 30 days by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CW-7006/2022]

¶22

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

¶23

petition if need so arises.

¶24