Rajendra Prasad Lakhara S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal Lakhara, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of 3-F-49, Prabhat Nagar, Hiran Magari, Sector-5, Manwa Khera (Rural), Girwa, Udaipur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personal

¶8

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chittorgarh Division, Chittorgarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priyanka Borana

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

13/02/2024

¶15

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 28.07.2023, essentially on the ground of same having continued for more than six months. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 and till today, no charge-sheet has been served upon him and hence, in the light of judgment of Hon’ble the Surpeme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 , the petitioner’s suspension deserves to be revoked and/or liable to be quashed.

[2024:RJ-JD:7316]

[CW-1838/2024]

(2 of 4)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶20

Indisputably, the petitioner was caught red-handed on 12.07.2023 while accepting bribe and has remained behind the bars for more than 48 hours. It was in such circumstances and precisely for this reason, the competent authority invoked powers under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules, 1958’) and placed the petitioner under suspension by passing the impugned order on 28.07.2023.

¶21

For the purpose of ready reference, Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958 is reproduced hereunder:

¶22

“ 13 . Suspension .– (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension.

¶23

(a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or

¶24

(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial: Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.

¶25

(2) A Government Servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty–eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the Authority competent to place a Government Servant under

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:7316]

[CW-1838/2024]

suspension under sub–rule (1) and shall remain under suspension until further orders.

(3) xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx

(5) xxx xxx”

It is to be noted that there are two separate provisions dealing with the suspension of an employee; one being, sub-rule (1) and other being sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958.

¶34

Sub-rule (1) is meant for the cases where the appointing authority or the State Government has initiated or is proposing or contemplating disciplinary proceedings; while sub-rule (2) is meant for entirely different purpose and to deal with other contingency. There is no stipulation of inquiry when an employee has been placed under suspension in exercise of powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958. Mere factum of an employee remaining behind bars for more than 48 hours is a ground enough to place such employee under suspension until further orders.

¶35

A comparative study of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958 leaves no manner of doubt that sub-rule (2) does not contemplate or provide for any disciplinary inquiry. Furthermore, in sub-rule (1) the expression “until further orders” is conspicuously absent, which clearly suggests that in the cases of contemplation or pending inquiry, if an employee has been placed under suspension in exercise of power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958, the disciplinary inquiry is mandatory and it is only in the cases covered by sub-rule (1) of Rule 13, the outer time limit prescribed by Hon’ble the Supreme

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:7316]

[CW-1838/2024]

Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) can be held appilcable.

¶40

Concededly, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in exercise of powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958, hence, neither initiation of inquiry is necessary nor can the suspension be held illegal on the ground that memorandum of charges or the charge-sheet has not been served upon the petitioner.

¶41

For the reasons foregoing, the writ petition fails.

¶42

Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.

¶43

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶44

18-Mak/-

Rajendra Prasad Lakhara v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajendra Prasad Lakhara v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Karamveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Rai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Loon Karan Jangid Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Shankar Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vahid Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Chandra Paneri Vs State of Rajasthan