SURESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is under suspension, has sought declaration against the respondents to the effect that keeping the petitioner under prolonged suspension without any cogent reason is unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal and further sought direction to quash and set aside the order dated 6.12.12 passed by the respondents and to reinstate the petitioner on duties.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was suspended by the respondent-Department on 6.12.12, on his having been found involved in the criminal case registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the case of the petitioner, the challan has already been filed in the said case by the Investigating Officer on 2.2.13, however the suspension of the petitioner has been continued and, even the departmental proceedings have not been initiated against him. He therefore had requested the respondents to revoke the suspension order, however the respondents rejected the said request vide the order dated 27.3.14 Annex.2 stating interalia that the matter could be referred to the State Level Committee for reviewing the suspension order only after completion of the period of three years as per the instructions of the Administrative Reforms Department. The said order therefore has been challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Punit Singhvi for the petitioner that the challan having already been filed in the criminal case, there is no reason to continue the suspension of the petitioner. According to him, the period of three years prescribed by the Government is the maximum period and that it is not mandatory to keep the employee under suspension for three years, without any departmental enquiry being initiated against him. Mr. Singhvi has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this case in the case of Prakash Dharu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DB Civil Special Appeal No. 239/13 decided on 17th January, 2014, wherein the court has observed that keeping a Government servant under suspension for indefinite period would ruin his efficacy as well as that shall be unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. He has also relied upon the latest judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. decided on 16th February, 2015, to submit that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period memorandum of charges is not served on the delinquent officer, and if the memorandum of charges is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.