MAHENDRA KUMAR BENARA Vs. JOINT SECRETARY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 5.3.2018 by the exercise of power under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1958'). The reason set out in the order of suspension was that FIR No.349/2017 had been registered at Police Station Sukher, Udaipur against the petitioner for offences under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000 (hereafter 'the Act of 2000') and Section 292 and 509 of IPC wherein he was arrested and kept in police custody for more than 48 hours.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the complainant- Sneha Meena in FIR No.349/2017 leading to his arrest and suspension order dated 5.3.2018 had also earlier filed FIR No.121/2016 Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur on 10.4.2016 against him for offences under Sections 354 , 323 , 336 of IPC. Subsequently in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4672/2016 decided on 7.10.2016, the said FIR No.121/2016 was quashed on the basis of compromise between the petitioner and the complainant- Sneha Meena. In the said order dated 7.10.2016 it was recorded by the Court as under:-

(3.) Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur counsel for the petitioner submitted that it thus obvious that the case against the petitioner in a FIR No.349/2017 Police Station Sukher, Udaipur under Sections 67 and 67A of the Act of 2000 and Sections 295 and 509 of IPC has been lodged by the complainant - Sneha Meena known to him and with whom he had an acquaintance and more, a causal relationship. This is testified to by the fact, FIR No.121/2016 registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur on 10.4.2016 for offences of similar nature i.e. under Sections 354 , 323 and 336 of IPC was quashed on the basis of compromise between the petitioner and the complainant- Sneha Meena. Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur submitted that FIR No.349/2017 registered at Police Station Sukher, Udaipur now pending against the petitioner is not reflective of the petitioner's moral depravity but only a consequence of misconstruing of an old relationship mutually entered into, becoming bad. Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur submitted that in the circumstances the petitioner having now been suspended for about 2 years, requires to be reinstated as the continuation of his suspension is wholly oppressive and in fact not in public interest as the petitioner a Professor and Medical Superintendent is not being able to discharge his duties in public interest. The petitioner had in the circumstances filed an appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 against his suspension order dated 5.3.2018. However vide order dated 15.5.2018, that appeal has perfunctorily, without reason been dismissed on a misdirection holding it not to be maintainable.