GOPAL LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition seeks to challenge the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 22.12.2005.

(2.) PETITIONER was working as Agriculture Supervisor in the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The real elder brother of the petitioner Bhanwar Lal passed away on 24.8.1981. Since he had died intestate, according to the petitioner, he performed his last rite and even the turban was tied on his head as per the customs prevalent in his community. Wife of the petitioner's elder brother started living with her parents and then there arose certain disputes between them with regard to partition of the ancestral properties in so far as share of Bhanwar Lal was concerned. His wife filed two civil suits in Sambhar Lake in the year 2003. However, no interim order of injunction was passed in the civil suits. She thereafter filed two criminal complaints in the Court of Magistrate at Jobner, District Jaipur which were sent to Police Station for investigation and were registered as FIR No. 148/2003 Under Section 420, 471 & 192 IPC and FIR No. 180/03 Under Section 420, 467 & 468 IPC.

(3.) SHRI B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that Government has the right to place the petitioner under suspension in view of the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules of 1958 which inter alia empowers the appointing authority or any authority to which the government servant is subordinate or empowered by the government in that behalf, to place him under suspension where a criminal case is under investigation or is pending trial against him. Learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that two FIRs were registered against the petitioner and in both of them, the police has filed challan against him and cognizance has been taken by the trial court. In one case, the petitioner was arrested on 24.11.2003, although it is another matter that he was enlarged on bail, but factual foundation of the order is not disputed even by this petitioner. The competence of the appointing authority in placing the petitioner under suspension, in this view of the matter, cannot be questioned.