JETHANAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - On 9. 10. 1990 while admitting the writ petition, the Court had directed to issue notice to the respondents as to why the writ petition may not be decided in accordance with the decision in Gopal Singh Vs. State of Raj. and another (SB Civil Writ petition No. 184/90, decided on 03. 9. 90 (1 ).

(2.) THE petitioner, who was employed as mechanic on 1. 11. 1964 in the Medical & Health Department was placed under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry, by order dated April 10, 1974, passed by the Director, Medical and Health Services. In all 4 employees namely, Dulichand, Giriraj Singh, Gopal Singh and the petitioner had been suspended by a common order. After a period of 14 years and 20 days, a charge sheet dated 4. 11. 88 was served on the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as '1958 Rules' ).

(3.) WHAT this court had held 12 years back, found its echo in the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash vs. Union of India (3), where the Supreme Court had quashed the suspension which had continued for 11 years. In Ashok Gaur vs. State of Rajasthan (4), the Division Bench of this Court has considered the nature and necessity of suspension of civil servant at length and has held that suspension should be resorted to cautiously and in rare cases when it becomes necessary to keep a government servant out of active service. The Government of Rajasthan in Department of Personnel has issued administrative instructions from time to time for expeditious disposal of inquiry proceedings. In these instructions, time and again it has been emphasised that the inquiry proceedings should not be prolonged because they not only cause harrassment and injury to the government servant but also causes loss to the public exchequer. Similarly, instructions have been issued from time to time on administrative side that suspension should be resorted to after careful scrutiny of the matter and should not be prolonged. Orders have also been issued for review of suspension after expiry of every six months period. The facts of this case show that what this court had pronounced 12 years back and the Supreme Court in the year 1987 and the various instructions issued by the Government, are of no consequence for the departmental authorities. The instructions of the Government, Department of Personnel are binding on all the departmental authorities but they have been flouted with impunity. The injury which the petitioner has suffered on account of prolonged suspension for more than 16 years, in my opinion, can never be compensated. Not only the petitioner, but his entire family has suffered during 16 years. It is true that it was for the departmental authorities to have taken decision to initiate departmental enquiry and punish the petitioner for the alleged delinquency, but the period of 16 years is not the one, which deserves any condonation by the court. In the absence of any explanation as to why the aforesaid charge sheet cannot be issued for a period of 14 years and taking into consideration the fact that the preliminary enquiry was held in 1987 and also the fact that even after issue of charge sheet in the month of April, 1988 no step was taken till July, 1990 even after appointment of inquiry officer, the respondents cannot be permitted to continue the inquiry. The petitioner has attained the age of 48 years and it would be simply perpetuation of his harrassment, if the inquiry is allowed to be held now. Moreover, in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 184/90 Gopal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the inquiry proceedings being held against a co- delinquent of the petitioner has already been quashed by this court and no purpose would be served by proceeding with the inquiry against the petitioner.