AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Block Development Officer against his suspension order Annex. 7 dtd. 18.1.2008 while the prosecution sanction was granted against him for offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120 I.P.C.
The petitioner is since then under suspension. On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to ascertain the latest status of the trial. He informed the court today that the challan has been filed in the competent Court and the trial is pending. He also submitted that the petitioner has been under suspension for last 5-6 years, but the respondents have not reviewed and revoked the suspension order yet.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent - Department of Personnel, Ms. Kusum Rao submitted that the petitioner is being tried for serious charges of corruption against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the matter is still sub-judice before the competent Court and therefore, the suspension order cannot be revoked. She also urged that alternative remedy under Article 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is available to the petitioner against the impugned suspension order, which the petitioner can avail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that while it is expected from the competent Court to expedite the trial in the present case, at the same time, without interfering with the suspension order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner can very well approach the Court concerned authority himself or the higher authority by way of appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958, who can pass appropriate orders on his appeal against the impugned suspension order.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction and liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 against the impugned suspension order. In case, the appeal is filed, the concerned authority is expected to decide the same expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.