Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 593 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-09

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 3.1.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh vide which he was suspended on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him under the provisions of Section 379, 285 of IPC, Section 3 of PDPP Act and Section 15(2) of the Petroleum Act. 2. It is contended that the petitioner was serving on the post of constable at Police Station Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh. While praying for setting aside the order of suspension, it is contended that charge-sheet has been filed on 31.3.2010. Charges have also been framed on 19.2.2014. Reliance is placed on the circular dated 7.7.2010 passed by the State Government issuing guidelines regarding the suspension and revocation of a Government servant against whom a criminal case is pending. 3. It is contended that as per the said circular, a Committee is required to review the suspension of an employee against whom a criminal case is pending for last more than 3 years and specially in case the challan has already been filed. It is stated that more than 05 years have passed but the respondents have not reinstated the petitioner till date. 4. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the case of the petitioner was forwarded in pursuance to the Circular dated 7.7.2010 but his case has been rejected by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan vide his letter dated 31.3.2014. Heard. 5. A perusal of the letter dated 31.3.2014 addressed by the office of Director General of Police, Rajasthan to Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh shows that speaking order is required to be passed. In spite of the same, the order dated 30.5.2014 conveying the decision to the petitioner shows that the said order is not a speaking order. No reason is forthcoming for the same. It is evident that there has been no application of mind while rejecting the case of the petitioner for reinstatement. 6. The allegation against the petitioner is of committing theft of petrol from the pipeline. Almost 05 years have passed and the petitioner is still under suspension. It is stated at the bar that only 04 witnesses have been examined till now and 25 witnesses are still left to be examined. It is further stated that the departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner. Almost 05 years have passed and the petitioner is still under suspension. It is stated at the bar that only 04 witnesses have been examined till now and 25 witnesses are still left to be examined. It is further stated that the departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner. However, the petitioner challenged the same vide CWP No.11516/2010 which stands admitted and by way of an interim order, respondents have been restrained from proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance to the memorandum dated 27.5.2010 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Chittogarh exercising powers under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2013 WLC (Raj.)(UC) 143. The observations in the case of Madan Lal are relevant. Relying on the judgment rendered in the case of Samrath Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2010(1) WLC (Raj.) 562 held in para 7 as under :- "In view of the reply given by the respondents I am satisfied that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Samrath Singh 13 (supra) is having complete application in the instant matter too. The petitioner is facing suspension from last more than 4½ years. It is also not in dispute that the criminal trial is at its initial stage as no charges have yet been framed. If the trial court frames the charges against the petitioner then the trial shall take huge time in its completion. In such circumstances, I do not find any just reason to further continue the petitioner under suspension. The respondents to avoid every possibility of tampering with the evidence and also to avoid a wrong message in public at large about continuation of a tainted person in service may post the petitioner at a place and office that is not having much concern with day to day public duties. A field posting may be denied to the petitioner to avoid all apprehensions, but no reason exists for further continuation of suspension, which has completed a huge term of four years and five months". 8. In the instant case also, the petitioner is facing suspension since the year 2010 and period of more than 05 years have expired. A field posting may be denied to the petitioner to avoid all apprehensions, but no reason exists for further continuation of suspension, which has completed a huge term of four years and five months". 8. In the instant case also, the petitioner is facing suspension since the year 2010 and period of more than 05 years have expired. The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. The disciplinary proceeding stands stayed by this Court in SBCWP No. 11516/2010. It is evident from the letter of the office of Director General of Police that a speaking order was required to be passed while considering the case of the petitioner for revoking the suspension order but no speaking order has been passed. Only a simple order of rejection has been conveyed which shows that the same is without application of mind. The petitioner being a Government servant, cannot be kept under suspension for such a long period only on account of pendency of the criminal case which is likely to take still more time. At the same time, it is necessary to safeguard the interest of the State and take appropriate measures to ensure that the petitioner does not tamper with the evidence and other material witnesses or use his influence in any manner. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The suspension of the petitioner from service vide order dated 3.1.2010 is revoked and the order of the Committee dated 6.2.2014 and all subsequent orders in pursuance to the same are also set aside. The competent authority shall be at liberty to provide posting to the petitioner at a place of his choice with a view to prevent from tampering with evidence or influencing the same in any manner. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.