AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 12.06.2017 passed by District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Jalore ("the D.E.O."), whereby, the petitioner has been suspended.
An FIR dated 09.05.2017 came to be lodged against the petitioner and several others. The petitioner was arrested on 24.05.2017 and remained in judicial custody till 30.05.2017.
The D.E.O. vide Annexure-1 dated 12.06.2017 noticing that the petitioner remained in custody from 24.05.2017 till 30.05.2017, ordered for suspension of the petitioner w.e.f.
24.05.2017 apparently relying on Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (''the Rules of 1958'') and since then the petitioner is under suspension.
Submissions were made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations were made against the petitioner, pertaining to the incident, which allegedly happened beyond the school premises, in which, the petitioner was not involved and the case has been lodged against several persons and, therefore, the respondents were not justified in suspending the petitioner for such an incident. Further submissions were made that the continued suspension of the petitioner, on the allegations, is not justified.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that besides the fact that challan has been filed against the petitioner, the respondents have also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of
1958. Further, as under the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1958 the suspension is a deemed suspension, therefore, the order of suspension passed by the D.E.O. cannot be said to be unjustified.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
A perusal of the record indicates that charges have been levelled against the petitioner, pertaining to an incident, which is alleged to have happened outside the school premises and has apparently nothing to do with functioning of the school.
Besides the above, the petitioner has already remained suspended since 24.05.2017. The mere fact that charge-sheet has been issued by the respondents under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 by itself is not sufficient for the continued suspension of the petitioner.
In view thereof, the respondents are required to review the desirability of continued suspension of the petitioner based on the allegations made against him in the charge-sheet before the Court as well as in the disciplinary proceedings.
In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to review the desirability of continuation of petitioner's suspension. The said exercise would be undertaken by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents. The respondents would pass a speaking order on the said aspect of the matter. The petitioner would be free to make a representation, if so advised.