1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4604/2007. RAJENDRA SINGH RATHORE VS. DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE MARKING & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER : 19.09.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. P.S. Bhati for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Chaudhary } Mr. Niranjan Singh } for the respondents. By an order dated 20.04.1999, three employees of the three Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis in district Nagaur including the petitioner, under the instructions of the Dy. Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Agriculture (Group -2), Jaipur were placed under suspension, because of their alleged involvement with certain irregularities relating to prescribing rates of cotton seeds. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked by an another order dated 06.08.2002 (Annexure 6) passed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti concern. The Director, Agriculture Marketing by communication dated 07.07.2007 instructed the competent authorities of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samitis to place the petitioner under suspension on grant of sanction for his prosecution for the offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Similar instructions were also given for other employees, namely Sukhdeo Patel and 2 Sattar Khan. Accordingly, under the order dated 03.08.2007, the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bilara placed the petitioner under suspension again. Being aggrieved by the fresh suspension, this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even in the event of grant of sanction for prosecution, a public servant cannot be placed under suspension ipse dixit. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents merely on grant of sanction for prosecution, placed the petitioner under suspension without any application of mind and without verifying as to how his continuation in office will adversely effect the trial or day to day working of the marketing committee. Heard. This Court in the case of Ashutosh Dashora vs. The State of Rajasthan and others (SBCWP No.473/2007), while dealing with the similar controversy held as follows: “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 3 not must. The competent 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.” In the instant matter too, from perusal of communication dated 07.07.2007, and from the contents of the reply to the writ petition, it does not reveal that how the need to place the petitioner under suspension was considered. At least such need is required to be recorded by the competent authority while taking decision to place such person under suspension, though it is not necessary to be mentioned in the order of suspension. The sole stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was placed under suspension as he is facing a criminal trial. It is nowhere stated that need of placing him under suspension was objectively considered and and it was felt that his retention in office shall not be in a public interest. 4 An another important aspect of the matter is that along with the petitioner, one Shri Sukhdev was also placed under suspension, but his suspension during pendency of the trial, which the petitioner is also facing, has already been revoked on 15.03.2008. No reason is available for making a different treatment for the petitioner. 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 from last more than a year and suspension from service for similarly situated persons has already been reviewed and revoked. This petition for writ, therefore, is disposed of with a direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to review the continuance of the petitioner under suspension and if suspension is not found necessary, same be revoked. While considering case of the petitioner, the respondents shall also keep in mind that suspension of a person similarly situated has already been revoked. Such review is required to be made by the respondents on or before 25.10.2008. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/