SBCWP NO.27/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.27/2007. Prem Shankar Verma Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors. Date of order : September 2, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vikram Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Virendra Lodha for R.F.C. **** BY THE COURT :- //Reportable// This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension and also praying for stay of the operation of the suspension order dated 23/8/2002 (Ann.3). Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that while suspension of the petitioner was made on 23/8/2002. Two other employees namely; Sajjan Singh Rathore and R.S. Gehlot were also suspended because they were also posted at the place as Branch Manager RFC and Shri Amer Choudhary Patwari immediately before the petitioner. In the order of suspension dated 23/8/1982 itself, it is contended that respondents have placed the petitioner under suspension as per the guidelines of the Department of SBCWP NO.27/07. 2 Personnel dated 10/8/2001 wherein it is provided that in case prosecution sanction has been granted against the public servant, they ought to be placed under suspension. The said circular has since been reviewed and revised by the Department of Personnel by subsequent circular dated 3/6/2006 providing that in case where investigation/trial of the case is stayed by any court, it would not be advisable to continue suspension order and such person be reinstated in service. Learned counsel has invited attention of the court towards the order dated 16/1/2003 by which this Court at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in SB Cr.Revision Petition No.35/2003 filed by an employee has stayed further proceedings in the crucial trial. Learned counsel contended that respondents themselves have by order dated 3/12/2004 revoked suspension order dated 4/5/2000 passed in the case of Shri R.S. Gehlot and has reinstated him in service without initiating departmental proceedings whereas fact is that Shri R.S. Gehlot is also one of the accused against whom prosecution sanction was granted. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petition and argued that Shri R.S. Gehlot was reinstated in service without any prejudice to the outcome of the departmental proceedings pending against him. At that time, he was on deputation at Ajmer. It is contended that in the revision petition, trial has been stayed by the court on finding certain SBCWP NO.27/07. 3 irregularities against three persons namely, petitioner, Shri R.S. Gehlot and Shri Sajjan Singh Rathore but the respondents decided to place the petitioner under suspension. It is conotended that till the trial is over and the petitioner is acquitted, there should be no order for his reinstatement. Learned counsel for petitioner in rejoinder submitted that while Shri R.S. Gehlot has stayed at the disputed place much longer period, petitioner actually joined at that place only 17 days ago before irregularities with regard to valuation of machinery etc. came to surface. In fact, petitioner himself initiated action for getting the revaluation done doubting correctness of earlier valuation. Having regard to the facts of the case and perusing the copy of the sanction order dated 3/6/1997 which has been produced, I find that prosecution was sanctioned not only against the petitioner but also against Shri R.S. Gehlot and Shri Sajjan Singh Rathore. Respondents have themselves in the order of suspension of petitioner relied on circular of the Department of Personnel dated 10/8/2001 wherein guidelines were contained for placing a public servant under suspension after prosecution sanction has been granted for his prosecution. But then, this circular has since been modified by the Department of Personnel itself which SBCWP NO.27/07. 4 has issued subsequent circular onthe subject on 3/6/2006 providing that in case where investigation/trial of a criminal case is stayed by any court, there is no justification for keeping such public service under continued suspension and in such cases suspension order be revoked and the concerned public servant be reinstated. That is besides the point, another factor is that respondents themselves revoked suspension of Shri R.S. Gehlot vide their order dated 3/12/2004. Surprisingly, in the revocation order, no reference whatsoever was made about the criminal case against Shri R.S. Gehlot or sanction granted for his prosecution. Reference has been made only to the pending departmental enquiry against him and the order has been passed of his reinstaatement without prejudice to the outcome of the departmental enquiry. Respondents have thus acted in a discriminatory manner. Moreover reliance placed by them on earlier circular dated 10/8/2001 is no longer remain valid after the same has been modified by the Department of Personnel vide its subsequent circular dated 10/6/2006. If and when, said order is vacated or when the respondents decide to place Shri R.S. Gehlot again under suspension, they would have at liberty to re-consider the advisablity of placing the petitioner under suspension. So long as the proceedings in the criminal case is stayed, conclusion of the trial is no where in the sight in SBCWP NO.27/07. 5 near future. Continued suspension of the petitioner cannot be justified especially when respondents have revoked suspension of Shri R.S. Gehlot. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned-order dated 23/8/2002 is quashed and set- aside. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil