Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 148 (RAJ)

Lal Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2023-01-12

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2023
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the respondent No.2- District Collector (Land Records), Dholpur, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts required to be noted in the present case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Patwari. On 02.11.2020, an FIR was registered under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. In view of the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 06.11.2020. Aggrieved of the order of suspension, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2021 in the following terms: "This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 06.11.2020 (Annex.2), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner made representation, inter alia, indicating that challan has not been filed against the petitioner and despite passage of sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench submitted that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of the disciplinary authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958 and appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 and has held that the various circulars issued by the State Government laying down limitation to examine the revocation of suspension order after a period of three years from the date of suspension/after a period of one year from the date, the charge- sheet has been filed, was not justified and it was open for the authorities to examine the case for revocation of suspension even prior to the said periods fixed in the circular. In the over all facts and circumstances of the case as projected as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of, the respondent No.2 - disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the representations made by the petitioner in light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra). The needful may be done by the respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner. The petitioner would be free to file a further representation alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority." 4. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 09.09.2021, the petitioner preferred a representation to the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 vide order dated 15.02.2022 rejected the representation preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite a categoric order of this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B.C.W. No.4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench, the respondent No.2 has rejected the representation taking recourse to the conditions mentioned in the Circular of State Government dated 07.07.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2 was to decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in mind the judgment of Manvendra Singh (supra) and in furtherance thereof, the respondent No.2 was to apply his mind independently and uninfluenced by the Circular of the State Government dated 07.07.2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent No.2 was required to decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in mind the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. He further submits that since the respondent No.2 has committed an error while rejecting the representation, the order dated 15.02.2022 is prayed to be quashed and set aside. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in the case of Jahangir Ali Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., on 25.05.2022. 8. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in the case of Jahangir Ali Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., on 25.05.2022. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable as the petitioner was caught red handed and in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), Manvendra Singh was not caught red handed while taking bribe and in that case, the charge sheet was filed. He further submits that since the charge sheet in the present case has not been filed, there is likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2 is perfectly just and proper and does not warrant any interference of this Court. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the order dated 15.02.2022 as well as the other relevant record of the case. 10. For brevity, Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is reproduced as under: 13. Suspension.- (1).......... (2).......... (3).......... (4).......... (5) Any order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate." 11. The position of the Rule is very specific which lays down that the case of a suspended employee is required to be considered for revocation of suspension at any time and therefore, the limitation prescribed under the Circular of the State Government dated 07.07.2010 was required to be ignored as mandated by this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra). Since the specific direction was issued by this Court on 09.09.2021 for deciding the representation of the petitioner keeping in mind the judgment of Manvendra Singh, therefore, the respondent No.2 was under an obligation to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Manvendra Singh and keeping in mind the spirit of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. 12. 12. A bare perusal of the order dated 15.02.2022 shows that the respondent No.2 has not applied his mind independently and again, decided the representation, taking into consideration the Circular dated 07.07.2010. The respondent No.2 should have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, specially keeping in mind that if the suspension of the petitioner is revoked, he will hamper the investigation in the criminal case and there is a possibility that the petitioner might influence the witnesses. Unless a finding to that aspect of the matter that revocation of the suspension of the petitioner will create hindrance in the investigation, the respondent No.2 was not justified in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. 13. The respondent No.2 has to apply his mind without being swayed by the Circular of the State Government dated 07.07.2010 as to whether the continuance of the petitioner under suspension is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not. Since the same has not been done by passing the order dated 15.02.2022, the order dated 15.02.2022 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance, the same is allowed and the order dated 15.02.2022 is quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the respondent No.2 shall be free to reconsider the representation of the petitioner in the letter and spirit as ordered by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2021 and pass a fresh speaking order within a period of four weeks from today. 15. The petitioner will be free to supplement his representation by way of filing any judgment for redressal of his grievances in the present case.