RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the suspension order dt. 26.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Transport Department.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned suspension order is not in consonance with the provisions of law, therefore, the impugned order of suspension may be quashed. I have perused the impugned suspension order dt. 26.10.2009 which has been passed on the basis of a criminal case registered against the petitioner in which he was arrested and released on bail. Meaning thereby, the Transport Commissioner exercised power under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules to place the petitioner under suspension for the simple reason that criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him. In the opinion of this Court, no error has been committed by the Transport Commissioner in passing the impugned suspension order. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned suspension order. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, if the petitioner is having any grievance against the impugned suspension order, he is at liberty to file representation for revocation of the suspension order within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon filing such representation, it is expected from the respondents that the representation of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order will be considered and decided objectively.