Dr. Sobha Goyal vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Since the grievance raised are similar, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

Both the petitions have been filed against the order placing the Petitioners under suspension in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 by the State Government vide order dt. 31/03/2010 after the First Information Report (FIR) under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act being registered at the stage when sanction for prosecution was granted by the authority.

Counsel submits that two FI Rs were registered against the Petitioner-Dr. Sobha Goyal. However, in first FIR No. 148/2003 which was registered u/s 7, 13(1)(d)(2) P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC, Final Report (FR) was submitted by the Investigating officer which has been accepted by the competent court of jurisdiction. However, at the same time, in FIR No. 277/2003, which was in regard to disproportionate assets, the investigating officer filed application for taking sanction for prosecution. However, while granting sanction for prosecution, order of suspension has been passed by the authority.

Counsel submits that the very basis to hold that the joint property owned by the Petitioners is disproportionate to their income, is ill founded and the prosecution has assessed the value of the property/plot on the basis of the current rates and not the prevalent rates on which it was purchased and only on that count, high valuation of the property has been assessed while prima-faice holding that their property is disproportionate to their known sources of income and in such circumstances, the Respondents have not applied their mind while granting sanction for prosecution and so also placing the Petitioners under suspension under order impugned dt. 31/03/2010.

In addition to it, counsel submits that about six months have been passed by now and the Respondents are under obligation to reconsider/review their action in placing the Petitioners under suspension under Rule 13(5) of the CCA Rules, 1958 that too has also not been re-examined by the authority and the challan has also not been filed against them so far as per their information. In support of submissions, counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Mathur v. State, reported in 2005 (9)RDD 3962 and; Samrath Singh v. State, reported in 2010(1)WLC 562.

Without going into merits of the case any further, this Court considers it appropriate that if, representation/ application is submitted by the Petitioners under Rule 13 (5) of the CCA Rules, 1958, it is expected from the authority concerned to consider the same independently in accordance with law.

With the above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.