Dismissed

Shri Bhanwar Lal Meharda (B. L. Meharda) S/O Shri Sultan Meharda v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Mar 2023CW/1843/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a suspension order on merits. The court held that the appropriate remedy lies in filing an appeal before the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal under Section 2(f)(V) of the 1976 Act, directing expedited adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to approach the Tribunal; the Tribunal is directed to decide appeals within 90 days.

Shri Bhanwar Lal Meharda (B. L. Meharda)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/003998]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1843/2023

¶4

Shri Bhanwar Lal Meharda (B. L. Meharda) S/o Shri Sultan Meharda, Aged About 57 Years, R/o House No. 104, Vidhyut Nagar-C, Near Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-3/ Complaints), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanwar Lal Meharda, in person For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

10/03/2023

¶14

By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 15.6.2021 passed by the Government of Rajasthan, invoking powers under Rule 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter “the CCA Rules, 1958”).

¶15

This Court issued notices to respondents vide order dated 31.1.2023 and in view of the fact that petitioner had filed appeal/representation against his suspension, directed respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on appeal/representation of petitioner. As per office report, notice

[2023/RJJP/003998]

[CW-1843/2023]

(2 of 4)

upon respondents have been served, however, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents.

¶20

Petitioner states that in compliance of the order dated 31.1.2023, respondents have considered the representation of petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 16.2.2023 declining to revoke the suspension for reasons that the nature of offences alleged against petitioner are serious in nature. The copy of order dated 16.2.2023 has been placed on record by the petitioner and same is taken on record.

¶21

Petitioner states that before passing the impugned suspension order dated 15.6.2021, the Department of Personnel had issued a suspension order dated 11.4.2021, under Rule 13(1) of the CCA Rules, 1958, suspending the petitioner in contemplation of the disciplinary inquiry. However, since disciplinary inquiry against petitioner was not initiated for a long period, therefore, the suspension order dated 11.4.2021 has been revoked vide order dated 19.7.2022 (Annexure-5).

¶22

Petitioner states that as far as the impugned suspension order dated 15.6.2021 is concerned, petitioner has been suspended due to his arrest for more than 48 hours in respect of FIR No.120/2021 registered under Section 7 & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 201 and 120B of IPC. Petitioner states that investigation of FIR is completed and chargesheet has been filed and thereafter, the prosecution sanction has been granted on 30.9.2022 but except taking the cognizance of offences, no substantive progress in the criminal trial has commenced. Petitioner states that his prolonged suspension is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted.

[2023/RJJP/003998]

[CW-1843/2023]

(3 of 4)

Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Promod Kumar, IPS [AIR 2018 SC 4060], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court placing reliance on the previous judgment delivered in Ajay

¶27

Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India [(2015) 7 SCC 291], suspension was quashed. In that case, the delinquent employeePromod Kumar, IPS Officer was suspended, for being in custody of police for a period of more than 48 hours due to his prima facie involvement in extorting money from the Directors of M/s Paazee Forex Trading India Private Limited, who have been booked for offences under Section 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 420 of IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that there is no doubt that allegations made against the first respondent (delinquent employee), are serious in nature. However, the point is whether the continued suspension of the first respondent for a prolonged period is justified. In absence of any material against the first respondent to temper with evidence, the Supreme Court observed that his reinstatement would not be a threat to fair trial.

¶28

Petitioner has stated that in view of above factual and legal matrix, the suspension order of petitioner dated 15.6.2021 deserves to be revoked. However, respondents have declined to revoke the suspension order and has rejected his representation vide order dated 16.2.2023. Therefore, petitioner prays to set aside the order of suspension dated 15.6.2021 as also the order dated 16.2.2023.

[2023/RJJP/003998]

[CW-1843/2023]

(4 of 4)

The Division Bench in case of Jahangir Ali Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan :D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.662/2022 decided on 25.5.2022 , has observed that the suspension order is appealable before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter for-short “the Tribunal”) in view of Section 2(f)(V) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976.

¶33

This Court is of the opinion that petitioner may challenge the order of suspension dated 15.6.2021 as also the order dated 16.2.2023, dismissing his representation to revoke the suspension order by way of statutory appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition against the suspension order on merits and relegates the petitioner to approach the Tribunal.

¶34

In view of above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to avail the remedy before the Tribunal. 11. However, taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the present case, it is hereby observed that in case, petitioner prefers an appeal before the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today, the Tribunal shall hear and decided the appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously as early as possible, and not beyond the period of 90 days.

¶35

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶36

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶37

NITIN /136

Shri Bhanwar Lal Meharda (B. L. Meharda) S/O Shri Sultan Meharda v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bhanwar Lal Meharda (B. L. Meharda) S/O Shri Sultan Meharda v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Yadav W/O Vipin Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaitan Meena S/O Hanuman Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh S/O Gheesa Ram Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Sharma S/O Babu Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Harish Kamma S/O Madan Lal Vs the Principal Secretary

Siya Ram Choudhary Son of Shri Girraj Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan