Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 744 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-31

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2015
Hon'ble TRIVEDI, J.—The petitioner, who is under suspension, has sought declaration against the respondents to the effect that keeping the petitioner under prolonged suspension without any cogent reason is unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal and further sought direction to quash and set aside the order dated 6.12.12 passed by the respondents and to reinstate the petitioner on duties. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was suspended by the respondent-Department on 6.12.12, on his having been found involved in the criminal case registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the case of the petitioner, the challan has already been filed in the said case by the Investigating Officer on 2.2.13, however the suspension of the petitioner has been continued and, even the departmental proceedings have not been initiated against him. He therefore had requested the respondents to revoke the suspension order, however the respondents rejected the said request vide the order dated 27.3.14 Annex.2 stating interalia that the matter could be referred to the State Level Committee for reviewing the suspension order only after completion of the period of three years as per the instructions of the Administrative Reforms Department. The said order therefore has been challenged by the petitioner. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Punit Singhvi for the petitioner that the challan having already been filed in the criminal case, there is no reason to continue the suspension of the petitioner. According to him, the period of three years prescribed by the Government is the maximum period and that it is not mandatory to keep the employee under suspension for three years, without any departmental enquiry being initiated against him. Mr. Singhvi has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this case in the case of Prakash Dharu vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DB Civil Special Appeal No. 239/13 decided on 17th January, 2014, wherein the court has observed that keeping a Government servant under suspension for indefinite period would ruin his efficacy as well as that shall be unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. He has also relied upon the latest judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Anr. He has also relied upon the latest judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Anr. decided on 16th February, 2015, to submit that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period memorandum of charges is not served on the delinquent officer, and if the memorandum of charges is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to the documents on the record, it appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension as per the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1958, as he was caught red-handed while taking bribe and was arrested in respect of the offence registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also appeas that as per the circulars dated 7.7.10 and 12.1.11, issued by the Administrative Reforms Department, the cases of employees against whom offences under the P.C. Act have been registered and are under suspension, could be referred to the State Level Review Committee for review if period of three years of suspension has elapsed and if one year has expired to the filing of the charge sheet in the criminal case. The request of the petitioner for referring his case to the Review Committee appears to have been rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 27.3.14 Annex-2, on the ground that as per the said circulars three years have not been completed to his suspension. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was allegedly involved and arrested for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and on the said ground he was placed under suspension on 6.12.12. Admittedly, the case of the petitioned does not fall within the circumstances mentioned in the circulars dated 7.7.10 and 12.1.11 issued by the Administrative Reforms Department. The respondents therefore have justifiable reasons for not referring the case of the petitioner to the Review Committee, and their impugned decision could not be termed as illegal or arbitrary. 6. At this juncture it would be very relevant to mention that as per the settled legal position, suspension cannot be treated as a punishment by any stretch of imagination. The respondents therefore have justifiable reasons for not referring the case of the petitioner to the Review Committee, and their impugned decision could not be termed as illegal or arbitrary. 6. At this juncture it would be very relevant to mention that as per the settled legal position, suspension cannot be treated as a punishment by any stretch of imagination. Suspension means the action of debarring for the time being from a function or privilege or temporary deprivation of working in the office. Beneficial reference of the decisions of Apex Court in case of O.P. Gupta vs. UOI, (1987) 4 SCC, 328 and in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (199) 3 SCC, 679 be made in this regard. 7. It is also pertinent to note that the effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in the office is also a relevant and determining factor for placing the employee under suspension or continuing his suspension. The scope of interference by the court with the order of suspension has been examined by the Apex Court in large number of cases, and it has been observed interalia that even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority, who can review its order of suspension. To cite a few decisions are in case of UOI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC, 147; in case of Secretary to Govt. vs. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157 ; in case of Allahabad Bank vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 etc. It has also been held by the Apex Court in case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel, (2006) 8 SCC, 200 that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of the said decisions of the Apex Court, the decision of the Division Bench of this court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is required to be treated as per incuriam and cannot be accepted. 8. In view of the said decisions of the Apex Court, the decision of the Division Bench of this court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is required to be treated as per incuriam and cannot be accepted. 8. In the unreported decision in case of Ajay Kumar vs. UOI (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court has clearly recognised that previous Constitutional Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the ground of delay and to set time limits. Though it is true that the Apex Court after recognising the said position, directed that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within this period the memorandum of charges is not served on the delinquent officer; and if served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. It is pertinent to note that in the said case also the charge sheet having been served upon the appellant of the said case, the Apex Court held that such directions were not relevant to him any longer, and the Apex Court did not revoke the suspension order. In the instant case, the petitioner is placed under suspension as per Rule 13(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, as the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been registered against him and is pending for trial, and therefore even though departmental inquiry has not been initiated against him for the said charges, the respondents are justified to continue the petitioner under suspension. 9. In view of the aforestated legal position settled by the Apex Court, the court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents. However, it is expected that the case of the petitioner shall be reviewed by the respondents on completion of three years of his suspension as per the instructions contained in the circulars issued by the Administrative Reforms Department. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed accordingly in limine. By this order, the stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.