RAJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Patwari, complains that his prolonged suspension from January 3, 1996, without there being any exercise of reviewing the same, is illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be briefly noticed. The petitioner who was placed under suspension on the ground of contemplated investigation in a criminal case vide order dated January 3, 1996 passed by respondent No. 2, in fact was not facing any criminal investigation on the said date. An FIR was lodged against him by the Tehsildar Kekri on June 6, 1997 which was registered at Police Station kekri bearing No. 110/97. Investigation commenced and Final Report No. 49/97 dated August 31, 1997 was submitted and accepted by the Civil Judge (Senior division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kekri on May 13, 1998. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite being apprised about this fact, the respondents have not bothered to revoke the suspension order.

(3.) UNDER sub-rule (5) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the Rules), the flr (3)-15 respondents have power to review the order of suspension. It is unfortunate that while placing the petitioner under suspension, the authorities did not care to look at rule 13 (1) of the Rules. Neither the departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner nor cause for suspension existed. That apart, the authorities also did not care to review the order of suspension even after the court accepted the final report.