Allowed

Mana Ram S/O Shri Bhoma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2024CW/18038/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Respondents to consider the case for revoking the petitioner's suspension within 90 days via a reasoned order, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary and a departmental circular, pending which the petitioner could file a fresh petition if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider revoking petitioner's suspension within 90 days by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

Mana Ram S/O Shri Bhoma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:35738]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18038/2023

¶4

Mana Ram S/o Shri Bhoma Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o B- 348 Near Water Head Tank, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

Deputy Secretary Department Of Personal, (A-3/complain), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.

¶9

Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan Panth Krishi Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Behind High Court, Jaipur.

¶10

Commissioner, Water Shed Development And Soil Conservation, Government Of Rajasthan, Panth Krishi Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Behind High Court, Jaipur. ----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

23/08/2024

¶15

Matter pertains to suspension of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the CCA Rules, 1958’) more than a year back but till date, the suspension order is still operating and continuing. Learned counsel submits that as per the circular

[2024:RJ-JP:35738]

[CW-18038/2023]

(2 of 3)

dated 22.03.2023 issued by the respondents, the respondents are supposed to review the suspension order of the suspended person, after submission of charge-sheet before the Competent Court by way of constituting a Review Committee. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 22.03.2023.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner, he has been placed under suspension, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in 2015(7) SCC, 291 in para No.21 has held as under:-

¶22

“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 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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:35738]

[CW-18038/2023]

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.”

¶27

Considering the above judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra) and the circular dated 22.03.2023 issued by the Department, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension within a period of 90 days by passing a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if necessity so arises.

¶28

Ordered accordingly.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of with above directions. The stay application and other miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Seema/251

Mana Ram S/O Shri Bhoma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mana Ram S/O Shri Bhoma Ram v. 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

Ramawatar Meena Vs State Education Departmentors

Anuradha Sharma D/O Siyaram Sharma Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Narain Sharma Vs Union of India

Rambhajan Meena S/O Mojiram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Haridesh Baghelal Vs State Education Departmentors

Deepak Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Nand Lal Sharma Vs the Chairman Cum Chief Managing Director