Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 448 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Teg Ram

2004-03-24

K.K.ACHARYA, RAJESH BALIA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal directed against the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner-respondent, while he was serving as Patwari, was involved in the accident with his own vehicle which was not connected with his employment and after undergoing trial, he was convicted 5 and sentenced for offences under sections 279 and 304-A IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar against the said order was dismissed and consequently, he was arrested and remained in jail from 20.8.2001 to 10.9.2001. As he has remained in jail for a period of more to than 48 hours and in view of the provisions. of Rule of the CCA Rules the order dated 30.8.2003 was passed ordering that he be deemed to have suspended on 20.8.2001 when he was arrested. 2. Subsequently, by the order of this Court in revision petition filed by the petitioner, his sentence was suspended and he was released on bail. The 15 respondent-petitioner moved an application for revocation of suspension, inter alia on the ground that the accident which occurred, was neither in the course of employment nor connected with the employment and also does I not involve any kind of moral turpitude. That application was not disposed of by observing that since the matter is pending in High Court, it may be kept pending and tree revocation can be considered only after the High Court decides the pending revision. Aggrieved by this order dated 15.1.2002, the writ s petition was preferred by the respondent. 3. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the aforesaid facts found that the suspension of sentence was in accordance with law as he remained in custody for more than 48 hours. He also found that releasing the petitioner on bail by this Court would not lead automatic revocation of to the suspension order because the order of suspension does not restrict in its point, duration or efficacy of the period of actual detention only. He also found that releasing the petitioner on bail by this Court would not lead automatic revocation of to the suspension order because the order of suspension does not restrict in its point, duration or efficacy of the period of actual detention only. However, taking into account the fact that the sentence awarded to the petitioner has already been suspended in appeal and the matter will take long years to come for hearing, the learned Single Judge found that there would be no 15 justification to keep the petitioner under suspension for such an indefinite period and consequently the impugned orders dated 15.1.2002 not deciding the application for revocation was quashed and it was directed that the petitioner be reinstated. 4. Apparently, when the order dated 30.8.2001 was held by the learned Single Judge to be in accordance with the law, it could not have been quashed and it is also not the case of the petitioner-respondent that he would not remain under suspension until the period of his conviction. His case was that after he was released, there was no reason to prolong the matter of suspension and the matter ought to have been decided. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent further places reliance on Ashok Gaur v. State of Raj. & Anr., 1987(2) RLR page 63 and another decision in State of Raj. & Ors. v. Bhoor Das & Ors., RLR 2000(3) page 544 , pointing out that where the confinement of the incumbent is not on the conduct of the party which involves moral turpitude and the 30 conduct is not in his official capacity but is in his private or individual capacity in such cases, the suspension should come to an end on release. The present case is not distinguishable on facts. Moreover, we are informed that in pursuance of directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner's suspension order has been revoked and he has been reinstated. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served by deciding the issue of power of revocation for academic purpose as the matter has already been dealt by two Division Benches earlier to provide enough guidelines for the authorities to act in accordance with the law. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served by deciding the issue of power of revocation for academic purpose as the matter has already been dealt by two Division Benches earlier to provide enough guidelines for the authorities to act in accordance with the law. Moreover, in the matter like this where litigation is pending and the litigant is likely to be protracted, it is not justified for keeping consideration of revocation of suspension order for indefinite period with the authorities which amounts to failure of discharging their obligations in keeping a person under suspension for no reason and it is also not conducive to the administration. 7. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal and therefore, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******