D.R. Agarwal vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—It has come on record that Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt. 06/01/2007 upon a criminal case being registered against him for offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and after the charge being framed, the trial is pending but no effective progress has taken place and criminal case is lingering on and may take its own course while he is facing agony of suspension for more than four years having rolled by now.

That apart, the Respondents have not considered his case for revocation of suspension impugned and on the other hand, have declined to enhance subsistence allowance after continuance of suspension beyond six months despite Rule 53(1) of RSR being applicable to the employees/officers of the Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Ltd, as enhanced upto 75% in case of Shri GD Mundra, Asstt. Manager (F and A) as stated in para 12 of the petition.

Without going into merits, writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation raising his grievance raised in instant petition in details for reconsideration/review of the order of suspension as well as impugned order rejecting claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance upto 75% before competent authority, who may independently examine the same and pass speaking order within two months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the Petitioner who if still feels aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.