MILKH RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, working as Patwari with the Water Resources Department, has been put under suspension by the impugned order dated 14.05.2007 (Annex.7) for the reason that in a criminal case cognizance has been taken against him for offences under Sections 447, 427, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner seeks to question the legality of the said order dated 14.05.007 by way of this writ petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in the purported exercise of powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the CCA Rules' for short) only on the basis of the fact that cognizance has been taken by the Court for the alleged offences but as no charge has been framed yet, it cannot be said that the trial has commenced; and further, that the matter having been taken up on a private complaint, no any investigation was pending. Therefore, learned Counsel contends that the petitioner could not have been put under suspension under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. Learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Deen Mohammed v. The State of Rajasthan,1991 1 WLC 239. The submission remains wholly meritless and this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance.

(3.) The fact that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences above-mentioned against the petitioner along with other persons is not in dispute; and is apparent from the order dated 06.10.2006 (Annex.6).