RAVI JOSHI Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND SARASWATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails his suspension order dtd. 5/2/2021 as well as the order dtd. 13/1/2022 passed by the respondents by which his representation seeking revocation of suspension order has been rejected and his suspension is continuing ever since.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of registration of FIR No.195/2020 against the petitioner, he was arrested on 21/1/2021 and remained in judicial custody for a period of more than 48 hours and on account of this factual aspect of the matter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned order dtd. 5/2/2021 w.e.f. 21/1/2021. Counsel submits that neither any Departmental Enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner nor any chargesheet has been filed by the Police against him pursuant to the FIR No.195/2020, even then, the suspension order of the petitioner was continuing, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.10756/2021 and the same was disposed of by this Court, vide order dtd. 22/9/2021 and directions were issued to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner submitted his representation, however, the respondents have refused to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner, only on the count that he remained in custody w.e.f. 21/1/2021 till 24/2/2021.

(3.) Leading to his arguments, counsel again submits that till date, neither any chargesheet has been filed initiating the departmental proceedings, against the petitioner nor any chargesheet has been filed by the Police against him pursuant to the FIR No.195/2020. Counsel submits that the petitioner is facing a prolonged suspension for the last more than three years and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law, in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).