BHANWAR LAL CHANDALIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBSTANTIAL Justice for Social Justice" should be the bedrock of writ jurisdiction in contradiction to "technicalities and hair splitting or pound of flesh Portia Advocacy. "

(2.) EQUITABLE extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts; which are flooded with ever mounting arrears of cases; should not be allowed to enact "merchant of Venice" of Shakespear. It should be utilised speedily and progressively, to impart Real, Substantial, Social Justice to the real needy persons who have become victims of injustice.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of Mr. Vimal Chaudhary and technically his submission is not without force. However this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to examined the substance of the matter in order to do substantial justice and hair splitting contention and technical contentions are to be rejected, as they do not find any substance on a bare scrutiny. The power of suspension is given under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, which reads as under : " Rule 13. Suspension (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension (a) where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial : Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an lower authority than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made. "