1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2057/2008 Jagdev Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 20 th May, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. K.S.Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, for the respondents. .... As a consequent to the registration of a criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B IPC, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 5.3.2008. While assailing validity of the order aforesaid the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the criminal case referred above pertains to the year 2006 and no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner under suspension. It is asserted by learned counsel that there are no chances of tampering with the evidence or pressurising the witnesses by the petitioner. There are also no chances of shacking public confidence in system by retaining the petitioner in service. 2 This Court in the case of Ashutosh Dashora v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition No.473/2007, decided on 29.4.2008, while dealing with the issue relating to necessity of placing a government servant under suspension, 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 too a periodic review of suspension is warranted. 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 one month from today and if, it is found that continuance of the petitioner under suspension is of no consequence, same be revoked. The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.