Vinod Kumar Patidar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 27.12.2013 vide which the petitioner was suspended; with a further prayer to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.12.2003. 12 years have passed since the order of suspension was passed. Even the charge-sheet was issued after almost 09 years under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the petitioner was put under suspension as he was arrested in connection with a criminal case filed against him with regard to preparing forged mark-sheet of class 12th. Further, the act was of moral turpitude. Hence, he was not entitled for revocation of the suspension before the conclusion of the enquiry.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further informed to this Court that the case of the petitioner is pending before the Reviewing Committee constituted for the purpose of reviewing the suspension matters.

However, learned counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute that no progress had taken place in the criminal case. It is also an admitted position that the departmental enquiry is still pending and even the charge-sheet was issued after a gap of almost 09 years i.e. in the year 2012 and the same too, is pending. In fact, two years more have passed since then and still the has not concluded. The Reviewing Committee has also not taken a decision till date.

In the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Prem Prakash Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2006 (1)CDR 291 (Raj.), the continued suspension of the petitioner in the said case was set aside by holding that it was well settled that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person but was an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him which should be completed expeditiously and in case, the said proceedings or the criminal trial is not concluded within the reasonable time, the authority concerned should review the suspension. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Shaukat Ali v. State of Rajasthan reported in WLR 1992 (S)Raj. 855.

A similar order was passed in the case of Sanwar Chand Chandel v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in SBCWP No. 6719/2007 decided on 06.01.2009 wherein reliance was placed on both of judgments in the case of Prem Prakash Mathur (supra) which further relied on the case of Shaukat Ali (supra) wherein it was held,-

"It is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.02.1999 and since then he is facing the same. No denial of the fact that a decision was taken by the State Government to revoke the suspension of the petitioner is made on behalf of the respondents. This Court in the case of Prem Prakash Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2006(1) CDR 291 (Raj.), while examining the issue relating to prolonged suspension held as follows:

"It is well settled that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person but is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. The proceedings so initiated should be completed expeditiously. In event the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal trial, as the case may be, do not reach to their logical consequence within a reasonable period then it is required that the appointing authority or the authority competent to place public servant under suspension should review the decision to continue such servant under suspension. This Court in similar circumstances in the case of Shaukat Ali v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in WLR 1992(S) Raj. 855, held as under:--

"Though technically and legally suspension is not a punishment but the ground reality is that in worse than a punishment. It results in the humiliation of an employee not only before the members of the family but also in the eyes of the world at large. A disciplinary authority or its superior is empowered to place an employee under suspension with a view that enquiry proposed to be held by it is not hampered with and delinquent employee is punished for this misconduct. However, suspension of government employee without expeditiously proceeding with a departmental enquiry or with a criminal case result in grave and serious consequences. On the one hand, it demoralices the government servant; on the other the government has to pay him subsistence allowance over a long period without taking any work from him and virtually a delinquent officer is paid for setting idle. All governmental executive action has to be inspired by dictates of reasonableness, Unjust and arbitrary actions are anathema to the rule of law. Principles of natural justice require that a departmental enquiry, and for the matter a criminal trial, should be conducted expeditiously and without loss of time. If this is not done, the executive government may keep a person under continued suspension for any number of years and in case eventually the charges are found to be groundless or not proved, it may have to pay him heavy arrears of salary etc. I am in agreement (with due respects) with their Lordship of the Madras High Court when the say that there is a very clearly a distinct principle of natural justice, that an officer is entitled to ask if he is suspended from his office because of grave averments or grave reports of misconduct, that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence, and that charges should be framed against him within a reasonable period of time and if such a principle were not to be recognised, it would imply that the executive is being vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress, for an indefinite duration." In the present case there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has in any way delayed the trial of criminal case. The only reason given by the respondents is that the circular dated 10.8.2001 restrains reinstatement of a government servant by revoking his suspension till he gets acquittal from the criminal charges. In my considered opinion the circular dated 10.8.2001 cannot curtail the discretion vested with the appointing authority with regard to placing, continuing or revoking suspension of a government servant. The appointing authority or the authority competent under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is required to exercise the powers vested with him independently by taking into consideration all the facts, circumstances and the legal position existing."

The facts of the present case are almost similar to the said extent. The prolong suspension is totally unreasonable. He was suspended in the year 2003. It is further admitted that the matter of reviewing the suspension order is also pending since the year 2013. Almost two years have passed and no decision has been taken on the same. The petitioner being a Government servant, cannot be kept under suspension for such a long period only on account of pendency of the criminal case which is likely to take still more time. At the same time, it is necessary to safeguard the interest of the State and take appropriate measures to ensure that the petitioner does not tamper with the evidence and other material witnesses or use his influence in any manner and does not create any hindrance in the progress of the proceedings.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The suspension of the petitioner from service vide order dated 27.12.2003 is revoked. The competent authority shall be at liberty to provide posting to the petitioner at an appropriate place in order to prevent from tampering with evidence or influencing the same in any manner.