1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6878/2010 Mahendra Raj Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 23rd December 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sanjay Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. Jamwant Gurjar, Dy.Govt. Counsel, for the respondents. ... BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition filed on 22.07.2010, the petitioner has questioned his prolonged suspension, ordered as back as on 22.08.2003 for his involvement in a Criminal Case. Briefly put, the facts of the case as emerging from the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was holding the post of Enforcement Inspector, Banswara from the year 1999 to 2001. On 02.08.2000, the Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted a raid where some wheat and rice were seized from the godowns of private persons and three FIRs were lodged against them under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In these FIRS, after investigation, a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 09.11.2004; and the competent court is said to have accepted the final report. On 02.08.2000, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental inquiry. According to the petitioner, the respondents, after enquiry were satisfied that he had no role to play in the aforesaid incident and, thus, revoked the suspension. 2 The petitioner has further averred that the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered another case on the aforesaid facts u/s 13 (1) (c) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act though his involvement was not shown in the FIR and he was not posted at Ghatol where the incident allegedly occurred. On 22.08.2003, however, the petitioner was again placed under suspension on the ground that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has registered a case against him. On 10.09.2004 the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 and requested that his suspension may be revoked but of no avail. It is submitted that the respondent initiated a departmental inquiry against the petitioner and levelled five charges against him. The departmental inquiry was conducted by the Dy. Commissioner who exonerated the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him; and rather found that the petitioner had falsely been implicated in the case. The petitioner has averred that the entire fact situation being in his favour, he has yet been unnecessarily continued in suspension and is due to retire on 31.12.2010. The petitioner sent a notice for demand of justice dated 12.04.2010 and for the suspension yet having not been revoked, has filed this writ petition. The respondents have contended in the reply that the petitioner was put under suspension because Anti-Corruption 3 Bureau has filed the charge-sheet against him in the competent Court after obtaining prosecution sanction and in the case of present nature, the suspension of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal or unconstitutional. Having perused the material placed on record and having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that in the fact situation of the present case, the prolonged suspension of the petitioner can only be said to be arbitrary and unjustified; and when the petitioner is due for retirement on 31.12.2010, it shall be a travesty of justice if the same would not be revoked now. In the case of P.L. Shah Vs. Union of India & Anr.: (1989) 1 SCC 536, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said,- “An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the government servant concerned.” In the case of Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2005 (9) RDD 3962 (Raj.), the petitioner concerned was facing suspension since the month of November 1992 and the respondents failed to show any reasonable cause for prolonged suspension and there was no allegation that he 4 had in any way delayed the trial of the criminal case. In the circumstances, this Court observed and held,- “8. In the present case there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has in any way delayed the trial of criminal case. The only reason given by the respondents is that the circular dated 10.08.2001 restrains reinstatement of a Government servant by revoking his suspension till he gets acquittal from the criminal charges. In my considered opinion the circular dated 10.08.2001 cannot curtail the discretion vested with the appointing authority with regard to placing, continuing or revoking suspension of a Government servant. The appointing authority or the authority competent under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is required to exercise the powers vested with him independently by taking into consideration all the facts, circumstances and the legal position existing. 9. In the present case the petitioner is facing suspension since November 1992. His prolong suspension is certainly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. The respondents failed to show any reasonable cause for prolong suspension of the petitioner. The respondents to ensure that criminal trial continuing against the petitioner remain unhampered he may be posted and transferred at a place where he may not be in a position to create any obstacle in progress of the proceedings. However, I do not find any just and valid reason to continue the petitioner under suspension. 10. I, therefore, accept this writ petition and quash the continued suspension of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pass an order to revoke suspension of the petitioner within a period of 15 days, the petitioner serves a certified copy of this order upon Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (Group-III), Jaipur.” 5 Following the aforesaid decisions, this Court in the case of Jai Prakash Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: CWP No.6492/2006, decided on 17.12.2007 has considered it proper to direct the respondents to pass the order for revocation of suspension after finding that the petitioner was due to retire on 31.12.2007. The present case essentially stands on the same footing and when there has not been any allegation against the petitioner that he had in any manner delayed the progress of criminal case or that his suspension is requisite for a fair trial, there appears no reason that he be continued on suspension, particularly when now he is to retire by the end of this month. Accordingly, this petition succeeds to the extent indicated above and is allowed. Continuous suspension of the petitioner is held arbitrary and unreasonable. The respondents shall issue necessary orders for revocation of suspension of the petitioner within five days from today. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. Mohan 6