High CourtsSingle Bench

Ugma Ram vs State of Raj. and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 10 November 2010 · Citation: (2010) 11 RAJ CK 0073

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Rastogi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 — Rule 13(5)
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 14969 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 337 words

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Counsel submits that the Petitioner was placed under suspension way back vide order Anx.2 dt. 27/07/2006 on account of a criminal case being registered against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act but after framing of charges, it is pending for recording of prosecution evidence which will taken its own time. However, at the same time, the Petitioner is facing agony of suspension for last more than 4 years by now.

2.

He although made representation for reconsideration under Rule 13(5) of the Rules but the same remain unheeded which compelled him to approach this Court by filing instant petition. He further submits that without examining the continuance of suspension as to whether it is required or not, the authorities are blindly invoking the circular of the State Government dt. 10th August, 2001 while deciding the representation/review of suspension submitted by the employee under Rule 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958.

3.

Counsel has placed reliance on judgment ofthis Court reported in 2005(9)RDD 3962, Prem Prakash Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided on 20/09/2005 & Vishnu Kr. Gupta v. State 2009 WLC 701. Counsel further submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt. 10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement to be complied with by the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules.

4.

Without going into merits of the matter this Court considers it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of the order of suspension Anx. 2 dt. 27/07/2006 before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgment referred to (supra) and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the Petitioner and if still he is aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.

5.

With these directions, the petition stands disposed of accordingly.