BHANWAR LAL PALIWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 7. 8. 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this dismissing the writ petition No. 2454/2000 filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 15. 7. 2000 passed by the respondent No. 3 placing him under suspension with effect from 22. 11. 99, the date on which he was taken into custody, for remaining in custody for more than 48 hours.

(2.) THE original petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III in December, 1982. An incident took place between two grounds of the village on 9. 11. 99 for which cross cases have been registered against both the sides. General allegations were made in the F. I. R. filed by Pabu Dan against several accused persons including the original petitioner/appellant for the offence punishable under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324 & 436 I. P. C. Similar offences were registered against the other side. No specific role is attributed to any of the accused including the present appellant in that F. I. R. After lapse of 13 days, the petitioner was arrested on 22. 11. 99. He was released on bail on 8. 12. 99. Thus, he remained in custody from 22. 11. 99 to 8. 12. 99 i. e. for a period of nearly 16 days which is admittedly more than 48 hours. As soon as he was bailed out, he informed about the incident to the higher authorities on 9. 12. 99. He reported on duty but unfortunately, he was not given salary from November, 99. He made several requests to the department by way of representations but the same were not considered and at last he filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for issuing direction to the respondents regarding his salary. THE said appeal was admitted on 26. 6. 2000. It clearly appears that annoyed with this, the respondents passed an order dated 15. 7. 2000 (Annex. 6 to the writ petition) placing him under suspension with effect from 22. 11. 99, the day on which he was arrested and kept in custody. He challenged the said order of suspension before this Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 7. 8. 2000 on the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Rule 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short `the Rules') with a request to the competent authority to consider his application for revocation of the suspension order within four weeks from the date of such representation.

(3.) FROM the facts narrated hereinabove, it appears to be clear case of victimisation and arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the authority while passing the impugned order dt. 15. 7. 2000 whereas it is established that the impugned order under suspension is ex-facie bad, then there was no question of asking the appellant to avail of alternate remedy of making a representation for revocation of the suspension order. With respect to our learned brother Judge, it was not a case of alternate remedy. Once the suspension order is passed, then it is open to the person to approach whether this Court or the State Government. If he has chosen this forum, then certainly, this Court cannot deny him an audience and refuse to decide on merits only on the ground that he could approach the State Government for revocation of the suspension order.