Chopa Ram S/o Shri Mana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against order dated 12.06.2017 passed by District Education

Officer (Elementary Education), Jalore (''the D.E.O.''), whereby, the

petitioner has been suspended.

An FIR dated 09.05.2017 came to be lodged against the

petitioner and several others. The petitioner was arrested on

24.05.2017 and remained in judicial custody till 30.05.2017.

The D.E.O. vide Annexure-1 dated 12.06.2017 noticing that

the petitioner remained in custody from 24.05.2017 till 30.05.2017, ordered for suspension of the petitioner w.e.f.

24.05.2017 apparently relying on Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (''the Rules

of 1958'') and since then the petitioner is under suspension.

Submissions were made by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the allegations were made against the petitioner, pertaining

to the incident, which allegedly happened beyond the school

premises, in which, the petitioner was not involved and the case

has been lodged against several persons and, therefore, the

respondents were not justified in suspending the petitioner for

such an incident. Further submissions were made that the

continued suspension of the petitioner, on the allegations, is not

justified.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

that besides the fact that challan has been filed against the

petitioner, the respondents have also initiated disciplinary

proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of

1958. Further, as under the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Rules

of 1958 the suspension is a deemed suspension, therefore, the

order of suspension passed by the D.E.O. cannot be said to be

unjustified.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the record indicates that charges have been

levelled against the petitioner, pertaining to an incident, which is

alleged to have happened outside the school premises and has

apparently nothing to do with functioning of the school.

Besides the above, the petitioner has already remained

suspended since 24.05.2017. The mere fact that charge-sheet

has been issued by the respondents under Rule 16 of the Rules of

1958 by itself is not sufficient for the continued suspension of the

petitioner.

In view thereof, the respondents are required to review the

desirability of continued suspension of the petitioner based on the

allegations made against him in the charge-sheet before the Court

as well as in the disciplinary proceedings.

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner

is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to review the

desirability of continuation of petitioner''s suspension. The said

exercise would be undertaken by the respondents within a period

of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed

before the respondents. The respondents would pass a speaking

order on the said aspect of the matter. The petitioner would be

free to make a representation, if so advised.