OM PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to orders dated 6.8.2013 and 12.2.2014 placing the petitioner under suspension with retrospective effect, i.e., from 27.6.2013.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he was promoted on the post of Senior Geologist against the vacancies of the year 2002 -2003. On account of promotion, one Shri Manoj Kumar B. Meena filed several false and bogus complaints against the petitioner as well as other senior officials and continued to do so. On 14.3.2013, Shri Meena requested for change of the channel for submission of Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2012 -2013 with a request that his Annual Performance Appraisal Report may be filed by an officer of any other Zone other than the Udaipur Zone which was with the petitioner. As the petitioner had received other APARs from other subordinate officers with the exception of Sh.Meena, the petitioner requested Sh. Meena to forward his APAR for the period 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013. Sh. Meena replied that the requirements of APAR would be fulfilled only after receiving the order of change of channel. Thereafter, Sh. Meena filed a false complaint against the petitioner before the Anti -Corruption Bureau, Rajsamand stating therein that the petitioner had made a demand of bribe of Rs. 20,000/ - Rs.25,000/ - for filling the APAR. Upon this complaint, a trap was conducted by the officials of Anti -Corruption Bureau on 27.6.2013 and the petitioner was falsely trapped by the officials and arrested on the same day itself. It is also submitted that despite filing of the false complaint on 25.6.2013 Sh. Meena requested the petitioner to fill his APAR pertaining to 2012 -2013 on 27.6.2013, which was duly filled. After arrest, the petitioner was enlarged on bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the bail order specifically records the fact that there appears to be great animosity between the petitioner and the complainant which is long pending. On release from jail, the petitioner submitted his joining with the respondent -department on 15.7.2013 and worked on that day. Subsequent to his joining, the petitioner was informed by the Additional Director that it had been decided to allow the petitioner to continue work only after receiving instructions from the Secretary, Mines. Faced with this situation, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Additional Director, Geology,Udaipur Zone regarding clear instructions about his joining. By an order dated 6.8.2013 issued by the State Government, the petitioner was ordered to be placed under suspension. The same order was subsequently amended by an order dated 12.2.2014 whereby the petitioner has been considered and deemed to be suspended with effect from 27.6.2013. Aggrieved against the suspension, the petitioner moved a representation dated 25.5.2014. Since the representation was undecided the petitioner has preferred the instant writ.

(3.) Mr. Vineet Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted by that the order of suspension is not sustainable on account of the fact that a false complaint has been filed by Sh. Meena, who was in the habit of filing false and frivolous complaints against the officials. It is further submitted that the suspension order has been passed in mechanical manner without considering the facts objectively or on coming to a conclusion whether suspension of the petitioner was at all necessary, desirable or inevitable. Moreover, if a Government Servant, after getting released from judicial custody, is permitted to resume his duties then the deeming provision of rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1958 would not be applicable and after joining, he could not have been suspended with retrospective effect from 27.6.2013. It is submitted that bail was granted to the petitioner on 3.7.2013 and even the bail order noted that there was animosity between the petitioner and the complainant. It is further argued that by keeping a Government Servant under suspension for a long period of time, merely due to pendency of criminal trial, would not be appropriate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Samrath Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and anr., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8249/2007 decided on 30.9.2009, (2) Subhash Singh vs. State of Rajasthan &ors., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2345/2011 decided on 3.9.2012, (3) Om Prakash Pandiya vs. the State of Rajasthan &anr., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4073/2001 decided on 4.5.2015, (4) Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and anr., (2015) 7 SCC 291, (5) PremPrakash Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan &ors., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3971/2004 decided on 20.9.2005 .