1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6076/2008 Ramjilal Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 24 th November, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. K.S.Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Boob, for the respondents. .... The petitioner, a Patwari, was placed under suspension by the Collector (Land Records), Sriganganagar under an order dated 18.3.2005 as a consequent to lodging a criminal case against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While assailing validity of the order aforesaid, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the criminal case referred above pertains to the year 2005 and the petitioner since then is facing suspension. It is also asserted that there are no chances of getting the trial pending against the petitioner deciding in near future and there are also no chances of tampering with the evidence by the petitioner. While relying upon the judgment of Ashutosh Dashora v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition No.473/2007, decided on 29.4.2008, it is contended by counsel for the 2 petitioner that the respondents are required to be examined necessity for continuing the petitioner under suspension. In the case aforesaid this Court held as under:- “The suspension from service is made normally with a view to avoid apprehension of tampering with the evidence including the witnesses. Suspension may also be warranted, if the allegations against the government servant are so serious that his retention during pendency of the inquiry/trial may shake public confidence in the system. In the instant matter though the allegations against the petitioner are of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but from record it reveals that so far as the alleged involvement of the petitioner is concerned, that is with regard to supervisory negligence. In every case, where the government servant is facing trial for criminal charges, including the charges relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, suspension is not must. The competent authority, before placing an incumbent under suspension, must consider its necessity. The unwarranted suspension of a government servant not only deprives the employer from utilizing his services but also put a burden on public fund in the form of payment of subsistence allowance. The Government must review the suspension of the government servant time to time, and if it is found that the suspension is not required, it should be revoked.” 3 In the instant matter the petitioner is facing suspension from last more than three years. The continuity of the suspension for such a long period may not always be desirable. It is required that such suspension must be reviewed by the competent authority periodically. Accordingly, this petition for writ is disposed of by directing the respondents to review the order of suspension of the petitioner within a period of two months from today and if it is found that further continuation of the petitioner is not warranted or is not in public interest, the same be revoked. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.