Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1480 (RAJ)

Ravi Kabra v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-12

INDERJEET SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : Inderjeet Singh, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "It is therefore most humbly prayed that Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ Petition and further:- i. call for the entire record of the case and examine the same; ii. the impugned order dated 01.05.2019 (Anx-5 and 6 and 6A) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to complete his post-graduation course in SMS Medical College, Jaipur. iii. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of petitioners. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded." 2. This court while issuing notice to the respondents on 17.05.2019 passed the following order:- "Matter comes up for considering the interim prayer made by the petitioner. This Court vide order dt. 14th May, 2019, directed counsel for the petitioner to serve copy of the writ petition to Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma AAG, as he had appeared as caveator on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents had sought time on 14th May, 2019, to argue the matter and further to seek instructions from the respondents. Mr. Akhil Simlote-learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension order dt. 1st May, 2019, was based on account of registration of a Criminal Case-55/2019 registered under Section 498A, 406, 354 IPC. Counsel submitted that not only suspension order was passed but the respondents further passed an order No. 2139 dt. 1st May, 2019, wherein on account of deemed suspension of the petitioner, the study leave granted to the petitioner to pursue the Post Graduation Course, was canceled. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was feeling aggrieved against orders of suspension as well as order of canceling the study leave granted to the petitioner from 1st June, 2017 to 31st May, 2020. Counsel submitted that after filing of the writ petition the matrimonial discord between the parties is sought to be resolved and both the parties have entered into a compromise, where the petitioner-husband and his estranged wife has decided to file an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for seeking divorce by mutual consent. Counsel submitted that after filing of the writ petition the matrimonial discord between the parties is sought to be resolved and both the parties have entered into a compromise, where the petitioner-husband and his estranged wife has decided to file an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for seeking divorce by mutual consent. Learned counsel has produced the agreement, which is entered into between the parties. This Court finds that the parties have not only agreed to move an application for seeking a mutual divorce but also further decided to withdraw the criminal case as per provisions of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of canceling the study leave of the petitioner is an arbitrary order. Counsel submitted that petitioner was already granted the study leave and only on account of suspension of the petitioner due to matrimonial dispute, the impugned suspension order and the order of canceling the study leave was not justified and the same power was exercised in arbitrary manner. Learned counsel for the respondents-Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG submits that the respondents have taken decision to suspend the petitioner on account of registration of a criminal case against him and further he was in police custody for more than 48 hours and as such the respondents by invoking power under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, have passed the suspension order. Counsel submitted that the issue of study leave is also properly examined by the authorities and Rule 55 of Rajasthan Service Rules provides that leave may not be provided to a Government Servant, who is under suspension. Counsel submitted that order of canceling the study leave was a consequence of suspension of the petitioner and no fault can be found with both the orders. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact of compromise, which is entered between the petitioner and his wife, wherein they have decided to resolve their dispute amicably. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the compromise entered into between the parties has yet to take a final shape and as such it may not be in the interest of justice to stay the suspension order, as the criminal case is still pending between the parties. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. This Court finds prima-facie, the order of canceling the study leave of the petitioner would affect carrier of the petitioner, as he will be deprived from undergoing the Post Graduation Medical Course. This Court further finds that though power under Rule 55 is available to the State Government to deny leave to a Government Servant under suspension, however, looking to the facts of the present case, where due to matrimonial dispute the petitioner came to be implicated, denial of right to pursue the study will too harsh for the petitioner. This Court further finds that the subsequent development, which has taken place of resolving the dispute between the parties will have also important bearing in future course of action. This Court as an interim measure directs that the respondents to allow the petitioner to undergo his Post Graduation Medical Course and further operation of order No. 12219 dt. 1st May, 2019 (Annex. 6) relieving the petitioner from SMS Medical College and order No. 2139 dt. 1st May, 2019 (Annex. 6A), shall remain stayed. However, parties would be free to move appropriate application before this Court for further directions. List the matter after six weeks." 3. Again the matter was listed on 07.07.2021 and this court passed the following order:- "In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8627/2019:- Heard on the application for taking on record the additional documents. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The additional documents are taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been suspended by the respondents vide order dated 01.05.2019 (Annexure-5) on the ground of lodging FIR No. 55/2019 against the petitioner by his wife Dr. Rajshree Gupta. Counsel further submits that in view of the compromise between the petitioner and the complainant-wife the FIR No. 55/2019 has already been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6227/2020. In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the FIR No. 55/2019 has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court which was basis for suspension of the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to direct that the suspension order dated 01.05.2019 shall remain stayed during pendency of the present writ petition. List on 03.08.2021. In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the FIR No. 55/2019 has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court which was basis for suspension of the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to direct that the suspension order dated 01.05.2019 shall remain stayed during pendency of the present writ petition. List on 03.08.2021. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6116/2020 & 6165/2020." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been suspended/relieved from the course on account of FIR No. 55/2019 registered against him at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (South) under Sections 498-A, 406 & 354 of IPC. Counsel further submits that the said FIR has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 13.01.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6227/2020. 5. Counsel further submits that since the reliving order of the petitioner for the MD/MS course was stayed by this court vide order dated 17.05.2019 and the petitioner has already completed his course of MD/MS vide order dated 07.08.2020, the suspension order/relieving order dated 01.05.2019 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have opposed the writ petition. 7. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the FIR No. 55/2019 which was registered against the petitioner on account of which the order dated 01.05.2019 was passed has already been quashed by this court; secondly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it just and proper to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The suspension/relieving order dated 01.05.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for all consequential benefits.