Sukhpal Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 20.08.2018 (Annex.-1), whereby the petitioner has been placed

under suspension.

Mr. Budania, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner has made representation before the respondent-competent authority, inter

alia, indicating that challan has already been filed against the petitioner and despite passage of sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been

reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 4276/2018, decided on

21.12.2018 at Jaipur Bench submitted that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of the disciplinary authority under Rule 13(5) of

the Rules of 1958 and appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 and held that various circulars issued by the State Government laying

down limitation to examine the revocation of suspension order after a period of three years from the date of suspension/after a period of one year

from the date, the charge-sheet has been filed, was not justified and it was open for the authorities to examine the case for revocation of suspension

even prior to the said periods fixed in the circular.

It is pointed out by Mr. Budania that above referred order dated 21.12.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Manvendra Singh’s case has been

partially modified by Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 04.02.2020 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1111/2019 and the matter

was remanded back to the competent authority for consideration afresh while setting aside the order of learned Single Judge to the extent of quashing

the suspension order.

Be that as it may, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Division Bench has affirmed the basic view taken by learned Single Judge that

suspension needs to be reviewed periodically, and the small modification made vide its order dated 04.02.2020, does not alter the position of law.

In the overall facts and circumstances of the case as projected as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), the

writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of; the respondent No.2-disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the representations made by the

petitioner (Annex.-3) in light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).

Needful be done by the respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed by the petitioner.

The petitioner would be free to file a fresh representation alongwith requisite documents before the respondent No.2.

Stay application also stands disposed of.