1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5197/04 Ranvir Singh vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 20/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mehla for the petitioner. Smt. Sudesh Kasana, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension dated 17.4.1993 with the prayer that the petitioner be treated as continuous in service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1.9.1989. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mehla, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had filed this writ petition in the year 2004 because he was acquitted in the criminal case by the trial court vide order dated 4.9.2000. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 16.4.1993, precisely because of this criminal case in which charge against him was that he procured the employment on the basis of forged degree. The respondents have wrongly stated that the petitioner has been removed 2 from service pursuant to termination order dated 22.11.1993. No such order of termination has ever been supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents neither held any enquiry against the petitioner, nor served upon him charge sheet in departmental enquiry for procurement of forged degree. Smt. Sudesh Kasana, learned Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents contested the writ petition and submitted that the writ petition has been filed simply based on the suspension order dated 16.4.1993 and that the petitioner has made no mention whatsoever about the facts that his services were terminated vide order dated 22.11.1993 because he secured appointment by procuring forged and fabricated degree and the department did not await for the completion of the trial and independently took the action as the appointment was procured on the basis of forged degree. A perusal of the judgement of the trial court reveals that the petitioner was acquitted by extending him the benefit of 3 doubt because the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence. Even then, the facts remains that the version of the petitioner that he was completely unaware of the order of his suspension when he filed writ petition in 2004, cannot be accepted. In the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 4.9.2000 and the writ petition was filed much thereafter on 30.7.2004. The facts of the case therefore stairs towards the bona fides of the petitioner where he has not uttered a single word about the employment and said to place merely on the suspension order without making any mention whatsoever the termination order dated 22.11.1993. The kind of prayer that has been made in a belatedly filed petition, cannot be entertained just because in between petitioner was acquitted by extending him the benefit of doubt in the year 2000. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/