Disposed

Sunil Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2024SAW/631/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that no opportunity of hearing is required for suspension as it is not punishment. The suspension order stands revoked automatically after three months if charges are not framed, citing Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Transfer does not preclude suspension, but the specific case requires review by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Special appeals disposed; suspension order reviewed with direction that automatic revocation applies if charges not framed within three months.

Sunil Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:32988-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 631/2024

¶4

Sunil Mathur S/o Shashi Kumar Mathur, Aged About 57 Years, 16/525, 16Th Sector, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

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

¶9

Joint Secretary To The Government, Public Health And Engineer Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 632/2024

¶13

Ram Singh Meena S/o Shri Jamnilal Meena, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Village Kheri, Ghatam, Jhareda, Hindaun City District Karauli Rajasthan.

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶17

The Deputy Secretary To The Government, Personnel (K3/enquiry) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶18

The Joint Secretary To The Government, Public Health And Engineer Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶19

The Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Appellant(s)	: Ms. Avya Gupta for Mr. Rajat Dave
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
	Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
	Ms. Aditi Moad

¶22

(2 of 5)

¶23

[2024:RJ-JD:32988-DB]

¶24

[SAW-631/2024]

¶25

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶26

Order

¶27

07/08/2024

¶28

Heard.

¶29

These appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the matter of challenge to the order of suspension dated 07.05.2024 by which, two appellants have been placed under suspension.

¶30

Quintessential facts necessary for decision of the appeals are that the appellant No. 1, Sunil Mathur was appointed and was working as Assistant Engineer, whereas appellant No. 2, Ram Singh Meena was working as Junior Engineer on the relevant date when the impugned order of suspension came to be issued on 07.05.2024, placing as many as eight employees including the appellants under suspension on the grounds of irregularities and misconduct. The order of suspension was challenged, though unsuccessfully, before the learned Single Judge.

¶31

Even though the order of suspension, admittedly is appealable under the rules, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants as the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of suspension and the remedy of appeal has now become illusionary. 5. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the suspension order is not preceeded by granting any opportunity of hearing. This submission is liable to be rejected at the threshold, because there is no provision under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules), 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958'), which mandates

¶32

[2024:RJ-JD:32988-DB]

¶33

[SAW-631/2024]

¶34

(3 of 5)

¶35

that before issuance of suspension order, any opportunity of hearing is required to be granted. It is well settled that the order of suspension is not a punishment, but only an action taken by the authority on certain allegations of respondent to facilitate the enquiry. Since suspension by itself cannot be said to be an order of punishment, there is no legal requirement to provide an opportunity of hearing.

¶36

The second argument is on the issue of competence. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appointing authority of the appellants is the Chief Engineer, but the orders have been passed by the State Government, therefore, the suspension order is bad in law. This argument also is liable to be rejected, because under the Rules itself it is made clear that the power of suspension could be exercised not only by the appointing authority, but by an authority, to whom the appointing authority is subordinate.

¶37

Third submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the manner in which the suspension order has been issued and the reasons recorded show that respondents have already decided that the appellants are guilty of misconduct on the basis of selfserving documents in the form of enquiry report and administrative notes.

¶38

The order of suspension on its bare reading shows that the respondents have contemplated a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 against the appellants. The reasons which have been recorded are prima facie based on preliminary enquiry and the same cannot be said to be a final opinion on the misconduct. The order of suspension is required to be read as a

¶39

[2024:RJ-JD:32988-DB]

¶40

[SAW-631/2024]

¶41

(4 of 5)

¶42

whole to understand its text and tenor and not be read in isolation. Therefore, this submission also does not hold truth and liable to be rejected.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellants further assailed the continuance of the impugned order by submitting that the suspension order was issued on 07.05.2024, thereafter, both the appellants have been shifted from their present place of posting and therefore, it is not possible for them to tamper with any record and documents which may be used in the enquiry, therefore, in any case, there is no necessity to continue the appellants under suspension.

¶44

One of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants is that since no chargesheet has been served till date, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1912/2015) the suspension order deserves to be revoked.

¶45

We have perused the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellants. The legal position as enumerated in aforesaid decision clearly makes out that if memorandum of chargesheet is not served on delinquent-employee in three months, the suspension order should not extend beyond three months. However, the suspension order was issued on 07.05.2024 therefore three months' time will expire on 07.08.2024 i.e. today itself.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the authorities are preparing and are in the process of issuing chargesheet.

¶47

[2024:RJ-JD:32988-DB]

¶48

[SAW-631/2024]

¶49

(5 of 5)

¶50

Be that as it may, legal position is abundantly clear that if the chargesheet is not issued within the period of three months from the date of issuance of suspension order, the suspension order cannot be allowed to continue beyond the period of three months, meaning thereby, that it stands revoked automatically.

¶51

This aspect, however, is required to be considered only after 07.08.2024. It goes without saying that if the chargesheet has not been issued till 07.08.2024, in view of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), suspension order is required to be revoked forthwith.

¶52

Even if it is held that the appellants has been shifted/ transferred to another station, whether or not continuous suspension would be proper or not, is a matter, which is essentially required to be considered by the authority competent to suspend. Since, in this case, no appeal was preferred, but directly writ petitions were filed before the Court, the appellate authority did not have occasion to apply its mind on this aspect. 11. Therefore, without commenting on this aspect, we are of the view that this aspect can always be looked into by the competent authority if any such application is made before it and the same is required to be considered and decided within a period of one month.

¶53

With the observation made above, both the special appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶54

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶55

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

¶56

98-Dinesh/-

Sunil Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Mathur 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

The State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Chandra Kanta

Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India

Rajkumar Sharma Vs Union of India

Akanksha Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Smt. Kavita Kanwar Vs Shri Ganpat Singh Rathore

Bablu Maida Vs State of Rajasthan