State Of Rajasthan And Ors vs Sudha Rani Singhal

This appeal is directed against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2018, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed.

Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants have placed on record of the appeal the enquiry report dated 27.01.2015 along-with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For stated reasons, the application is allowed. The enquiry report dated 27.01.2015 is taken on record.

Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, submitted that the respondent had in the writ petition challenged the order of her suspension dated 01.12.2000. At the relevant time, the respondent was working on the post of Additional Deputy District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sawai Madhopur. She was placed under suspension on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against her.

It is submitted that the respondent approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.528/2016 stating that even though the order of suspension was passed on 01.12.2000 but the disciplinary proceedings have not been finalized even after lapse of 16 years. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of suspension as also the departmental proceedings initiated vide memorandum dated 23.02.2004, and directed that the question regarding payment of salary other than subsistence allowance will depend upon the result of the ACB Case and order under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 shall be passed only thereafter, however, the petitioner (respondent herein) would be entitled for notional fixation under the revised pay scale rules from time to time and would be granted the salary from the date of judgment.

Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in quashing the disciplinary proceedings whereas the writ petition was filed only with single prayer seeking quashment of order of suspension. Not only that, the charge-sheet was not challenged therein and even the copy of the charge-sheet was not filed and therefore the appellants did not have opportunity to contest the matter on merits. In fact, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the departmental enquiry against the respondent had been completed and the enquiry officer has submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 27.01.2015, in which the charges against the respondent were found proved. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the disciplinary authority should be permitted to take a final decision on the enquiry report.

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in view of the facts of the case the learned Single Judge has not justified in imposing the cost of Rs.25,000/- on the concerned officials.

Mr. Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the appeal and submitted that the charge-sheet was served by the appellants on the respondent on 23.02.2004 and the departmental enquiry remained pending for a long time and as per own showing of the appellants the final enquiry report was submitted on 27.01.2015. The respondent/writ-petitioner was placed under suspension on 01.12.2000 and she remained under suspension till the date of passing of the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that in that view of the matter, this was a case of prolonged suspension. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in quashing the suspension order as also the departmental proceedings against the respondent/writ-petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also the impugned judgment, we find that challenge in the writ petition was confined to the order of suspension dated 01.12.2000. No challenge was made to the disciplinary proceedings or the charge-sheet. It is a fact that the respondent remained under continued suspension for as long as 16 years but this happened, apart from the fact that she was served with the charge-sheet, because she was also facing criminal trial in an ACB case. Although the judgment to the extent of quashing of the suspension order dated 01.12.2000 cannot be faulted, but the learned Single Judge, in our view, was not justified in quashing the departmental proceedings as also the charge-sheet. The appellants were indeed prejudiced by quashment of the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings even though the respondent did not challenge the same and did not place the copy of the charge-sheet on record of the writ petition. Having regard to this fact, the appellants could not contest the matter and were taken by surprise when learned Single Judge quashed the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings. This was more so because the enquiry officer had already concluded the enquiry and submitted his report on 27.01.2015.

In this view of the matter, we are persuaded to allow the appeal in part. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent of quashing the suspension order, is maintained, however, the direction to quash departmental proceedings initiated vide memorandum dated 23.02.2004 is set aside. Considering that the enquiry officer had, independent of the criminal trial, continued the departmental enquiry and has already submitted the report, the final decision of the disciplinary authority need not await final outcome of the criminal trial. We therefore direct the disciplinary authority to take a decision on the enquiry report by supplying a copy thereof to the respondent and obtaining her representation thereagainst now positively within three months from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before him. The manner in which the period of suspension shall be regulated would be decided while passing the final order in the disciplinary proceedings in terms of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951, whether or not the respondent shall be paid salary other than the subsistence allowance already paid to her. However, the respondent would be entitled to notional fixation as per the pay scale rules revised from time to time, deeming her to be continued in service till the date of the impugned judgment.

The cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge on the appellants is waived.

The appeal is accordingly allowed in part with aforesaid directions. This also disposes of the stay application.