Ramesh Chand Jain vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Counsel submits that Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt. 23/02/1998 (Ann.1) on account of criminal case (FIR-191/1997) being registered at PS Kotwali, Tonk for offences punishable Under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC. He further submits that criminal case is pending trial; the learned Public Prosecutor had filed application u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure for arraying additional accused, which was allowed by learned trial Judge on 21/04/2010; thereby de novo trial has commenced and the trial is pending at the stage of calling additional accused and since the year 1998, the trial is lingering on and may take its own course while he is facing agony of suspension for almost 12 years having rolled by now.

Counsel further submits that without examining the continuation of suspension as to whether it is required or not, the authorities are blindly invoking the circular of the State Government dt.10th August, 2001 while deciding representation/review of suspension submitted by the employee under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958.

Counsel has further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Prem Prakash Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2005 (9) RDD 3962 and Vishnu Kr. Gupta v. State 2009 WLC 701. Counsel submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt.10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13 (5) of the Rules.

Without going into merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation for reconsideration/ review of the order of suspension dt. 23/02/1998 before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgment (supra) and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the Petitioner who if still feels aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.