The High Court directed respondents to revoke the petitioner's suspension within 60 days. The court cited Supreme Court precedent limiting suspension duration and ordered a reasoned decision post-suspension expiry.
Direct respondents to consider revocation of suspension within 60 days via a reasoned order.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:35587]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13687/2024
Rambhajan Meena S/o Mojiram Meena, aged about 29 Years, R/o Village Atta Meena Ki Dhani, Bhandraj, Tehsil and District Dausa Rajasthan At Present Posted As Patwari, Suspended at Tehsil Office Baharawanda, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
23/08/2024
Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., reported in
2015(7) SCC 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/chargesheet 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 outside the State so as to sever
(2 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JP:35587]
[CW-13687/2024]
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 adequately 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.”
[2024:RJ-JP:35587]
[CW-13687/2024]
(3 of 3)
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Aayush Sharma /32
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's suspension should be revoked within a specified period.
Whether the government is directed to issue a reasoned order on suspension expiration.
Whether the petitioner is empowered to renew the suspension challenge via fresh writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶17
Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2015(7) SCC 291 · Who else cites this
Rambhajan Meena
State of Rajasthan
District Collector, Dausa
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
