SBCWP No.3264/01. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3264/2001. Heera Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : November 21, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms. Anisha Jain for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition seeks to challenge the order of suspension dated 19/3/2001. 2) Notices of this writ petition were issued by this Court as far as back 12/7/2001 but no interim- order was passed. 3) Contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was involved in a family dispute which ultimately led to registration of a criminal case against him. He was convicted by the order of the trial court for offences under Sections 379, 452, 336, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and was sentended to undergo with one year's rigorous imprisonment. He SBCWP No.3264/01. 2 filed appeal against the conviction. Sentence was suspended however, respondents suddenly passed the order of suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. The suspension was bad in law because regarding the self-same incident, earlier, a departmental enquiry was intiated against the petitioner in which he was awarded minor penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. Once, he was awarded penalty aforesaid, the second enquiry on the self-same charges could not be initiated. 4) Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition by filing reply thereto that mere acquittal in a criminal proceeding, does not create a bar for the employer to held the departmental enquiry against the delinquent. He has also argued that petitioner has already availed of remedy of appeal against the order of suspension which is pending before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Bharatpur and therefore parallel remedy of writ cannot be availed of against the same suspension order. 5) Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned Additional Government Counsel is in a position to inform this Court whether the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner has been concluded or whether appeal of the petitioner has been decided or not. In all probability, the SBCWP No.3264/01. 3 departmental enquiry against the petitioner must have been concluded by now particularly when there was no order of stay so passed by this Court even against the order of suspension. 6) Having regard to the facts of the case, I direct that in case, respondents have not conlcuded the departmental enquiry even uptill now, order of suspension against the petitioner shall stand revoked. However, if the departmental enquiry is found to have been concluded, the question as to in what manner suspension period of the petitioner is regulated, would be governed by the order passed by the disciplinary authority. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCWP No.3264/01. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.3332/2001. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3264/2001. Heera Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : November 21, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms. Anisha Jain for the applicant-petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- Consequent upon disposal of the main writ petition, this stay application is also disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil