SCA/16212/2005 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16212 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= RAMAN M. RATHOD - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MS TRIVEDI for MS PRANJAL M TRIVEDI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR JM MALKAN ASG for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 21/12/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/16212/2005 2/4 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA) Heard learned counsel Shri Trivedi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Malkan for the respondents. Petitioner was working as Youth Coordinator with the respondent. For accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/- for registration, he was caught red handed on 23.9.2003. On the next day i.e. On 29.9.2003 he was released on conditional bail by the competent court. On receiving intimation from ACB, the respondent No.2 by his order dated 30.9.2003 placed him under suspension on two grounds; (1) that the criminal offence was registered against him which was under investigation and (2) that he was arrested and granted conditional bail on next day for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. Following prayers have been made in the petition; (1)to quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondents of not revoking suspension of the petitioner; (2)to direct the respondents to review / revoke suspension of the petitioner; and (3)by way of interim relief, the respondents be directed to enhance subsistence allowance of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2004. SCA/16212/2005 3/4 JUDGMENT Before approaching this court by way of this writ petition in 2005, the petitioner made two representations dated 10.5.2005 and 16.5.2005 respectively for enhancing his subsistence allowance and for revoking his suspension. It is stated in the petition that the trap failed even though the petitioner was placed under suspension. Whereas, in the reply affidavit it is stated that the trap was successful and when the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/-. It was vehemently submitted by Shri Malkan learned Assistant Solicitor General that for making false statement on oath in the petition, the petition should be dismissed. On merits, it was stated in the reply affidavit that they reviewed the case of the petitioner, but revocation was not considered in his favour in view of the grace charges against him. However, it was submitted by Shri Trivedi for the petitioner that as per the rules they were bound to review the case of the petitioner periodically which they have failed, therefore, the suspension be revoked. However, it was submitted by Shri Malkan for the respondent that once the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner, then there is no question of revoking his suspension and, therefore, the respondents thought it fit not to revoke his suspension till the criminal trial is over. He, therefore, submitted that it would be meaningless to review the case of the petitioner periodically. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner should approach the competent criminal court taking up his criminal case for early disposal. SCA/16212/2005 4/4 JUDGMENT If he is exonerated, then obviously his suspension can be revoked, but if he is convicted he can even be dismissed from service. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that if the petitioner approaches the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara for expeditious hearing of his case filed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the ACB, then we are sure that the learned Judge will give priority and try to decide the case as early as possible. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (B.J.SHETHNA, J.) (H.B.ANTANI, J.) *pvv