MANVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts which need to be referred for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was holding the post of Head Constable, Sawaimadhopur while he was investigating one case registered at Police Station, Choth Ka Barwara arising out of FIR No.82/2017 dtd. 29/4/2017 for the offences under Sec. 323, 341, 143 & 336 IPC. A complaint was registered with the Anti Corruption Bureau, Sawaimadhopur on 15/5/2017 by one Ram singh Gurjar alleging demand of bribe by the petitioner and Anti Corruption Bureau conducted the trap. However, as per the statement of the complainant the petitioner declined to receive the amount of bribe and went away from the spot. On the basis thereof, a case for an offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 demanding bribe by the petitioner was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities against the petitioner on 12/7/2017. The petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against him were false and baseless and with a view to pressurise him as he was not ready to submit a report in favour of the accused Ram singh Gujar. An application had also been submitted by the said person seeking transfer of investigation of the case from the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dtd. 17/7/2017 invoking provisions of Rule-13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short' Rules of 1958') and the petitioner thereafter moved an application under Rule 13(5) of the CCA Rules, 1958 seeking revocation of the suspension order but the same was declined on the ground that there is a circular issued by the State Government of not interfering with the suspension in cases of Anti Corruption Bureau matters for atleast three years or where one year has lapsed from the date of submission of the charge-sheet. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this writ petition seeking revocation of the suspension.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that chargesheet has already been filed in the said case by the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities on 6/4/2018 under Sec. 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and there is a likelihood of the criminal case to take long time. Learned Counsel submits that power of suspension cannot be exercised as a punitive action and the petitioner ought not to be continued to remain under suspension.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents have relied upon the circular issued on 7/7/2010 by the Department of Personnel which lays down that if any public servant is caught red-handed by the Anti Corruption Bureau he shall be placed immediately under suspension. Secondly, in cases apart from trap cases, if the prosecution sanction has been granted in ACB matters apart from trap cases, then too the concerned public servant is necessarily required to be suspended and thirdly in cases where allegations of public servant having committed offence of dowry death or grievous offences or offences relating to moral turpitude the concerned public servant is required to be necessarily suspended. It is further stated that question regarding revocation of suspension of such public servants would be examined only after three years of period has elapsed or where charge-sheet has been filed and one year has elapsed and such cases shall be placed before the Committee who will examine the same. It further states that on acquittal by competent Court at the first instance the concerned public servant should be reinstated. Learned Counsel has further relied upon another circular dtd. 23/2/2015 that in cases where one year has elapsed from the date of charge-sheet, then only the case can be examined only for revocation by the Committee and a speaking order in this regard is required to be passed.