1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.473/2007 Ashutosh Dashora Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 29.4.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Addl. Govt. Advocate. ... On being granted sanction for prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC, the Government of Rajasthan while exercising powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 placed the petitioner under suspension by the order dated 26.12.2006, and the same is under challenge in the instant petition for writ. Precisely, the question requires consideration is that as to whether suspension of the petitioner is yet desirable? The suspension from service is made normally with a view to avoid apprehension of tampering with the evidence including the witnesses. Suspension may also be warranted, if the allegations against the government servant are so serious that his retention during pendency of the inquiry/trial may shake public confidence in the system. In the instant matter though the allegations against the petitioner are of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but from record it reveals that so far as the alleged involvement of the petitioner is concerned, that is with regard to supervisory negligence. In every case, where the government servant is facing trial for criminal charges, including the charges relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, suspension is not must. The competent 2 authority, before placing an incumbent under suspension, must consider its necessity. The unwarranted suspension of a government servant not only deprives the employer from utilizing his services but also put a burden on public fund in the form of payment of subsistence allowance. The Government must review the suspension of the government servant time to time, and if it is found that the suspension is not required, it should be revoked. The facts of the instant case requires that the competent authority must review the decision for continuing the petitioner under suspension as he is facing the same since 26.12.2006. This petition for writ therefore, is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to review the continuance of the petitioner under suspension and if the suspension is found not necessary, same be revoked. Such review is required to be made within a period of three months from the day of presentation of the copy of this order before the competent authority. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal