CWP 9213/02 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.9213/2002 B K Mathur Med. Jurist Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 26/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RM Jain for Mr. R K Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.Govt. Adv., for State Petitioner was placed under suspension by respondents in exercise of Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958 vide order dt. 30/11/99 (Ann.1) while holding post of Medical Jurist on account of criminal case being registered for offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act; and charge sheet was also served upon hium alongwith memo dt.01/02/02 (Ann.7). He has challenged both the order of suspension (Ann.1) and the charge sheet (Ann.7). Pendente writ petition, after regular trial, he has been acquitted by a competent court of jurisdiction in criminal case (supra) vide judgment dt.24/08/07; and he also retired from service on 31/10/06. Counsel for petitioner submits that in view of order of acquittal being passed by competent court of jurisdiction in criminal case – a copy whereof has also been placed on record, no purpose is going to serve for further CWP 9213/02 //2// proceeding in disciplinary inquiry initiated against him, as per which even otherwise, it was for allegation that he has failed to report in the office during suspension period. After going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that passing order of acquittal in criminal case (supra) can be one of his defence to be examined by competent authority in the disciplinary inquiry pending against him pursuant to memo (Ann.7) but merely on account of the order of acquittal, disciplinary action pending against petitioner cannot be dropped and it has to be considered by disciplinary authority in course of regular inquiry under CCA Rules, 1958. Making any observation in regard to inquiry pending against petitioner, may cause prejudice and it is pre- mature to interfere at this stage. Consequently, writ petition is hereby dismissed alongwith stay petition. However, since petitioner has retired from service on 31/10/06, respondents are directed to conclude disciplinary proceedings pending against him expeditiously after affording opportunity to him in accordance with law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/9213CWP02.doc