CW 14450/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14450/09 Dr. Jagdish Prasad Gupta Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 27/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. N.K. Singhal, for petitioner *** Counsel submits that petitioner, who is presently holding the post of Health Officer, on account of a criminal case being registered against him under Prevention of Corruption Act, was placed under suspension vide order dt.19th September, 2001. He further submits that after charge has been framed, partly prosecution witness has been examined, but pending trial will take its own time. However, petitioner is facing agony of suspension for last more than eight yrs. by now and number of representations submitted by him for review/reconsideration U/r.13(5) of the Rules remained unheeded which compelled him to approach this court by filing instant petition. Counsel has further placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported in 2005(9)RDD 3962 (Raj.), Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and so also in 2009 WLC [UC]- 701, Vishnu Kr. Gupta & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. and CW 14450/09 [2] submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt.10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules. Counsel has further brought to the notice of this Court a circular of the Government of Rajasthan dt.7th February, 1962 and it was further reiterated on 25th March, 1967 and thereafter, on 21st August, 1968 laying down guidelines for Government departments to examine the matter in regard to employees who are placed under suspension and in Para 1 of the circular, it has been observed that if delay is exceeding 5 yrs. due to criminal proceedings pending against delinquent suspended employee in court of law, such suspension may be re-examined by the authorities. According to Counsel, consistent circulars issued from the Government from time to time while examining delinquent-employees who are placed under suspension have been given complete go-bye and authorities always give its emphasis on the later circular of 10th August, 2001 while rejecting such representations made U/r.13(5) of the Rules. CW 14450/09 [3] Without going into merits of the matter at this stage, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of the order of suspension dt.19th September, 2001 before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgments referred to (supra) and pass a speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the petitioner and if still he is aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law. With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA14450CW09 27-11.doc