SITARAM MALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER submits that the petitioner placed under suspension way back in the year 2005 because of a case being registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the charge having been framed, no evidence has been recorded so far and even the ACD Court at Kota, as per his information, is lying vacant for last more than one year and in such circumstances, the trial will take its own time. The petitioner is facing agony of suspension for last more than four years. He although made representation for reconsideration under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, however, the same has not been decided so far. Counsel has placed reliance on judgment of this Court reported in 2005(9)RDD 3962(Raj.), Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan&Ors. decided on 20/09/2005 Counsel further submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt. 10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules.

(2.) WITHOUT going into merits of the matter this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of the order of suspension dt. 11/02/2005 (Anx.2) before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgment referred to (supra) and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the petitioner and if still he is aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.