IMPORTANT POINT
Suspension and criminal proceedings; continuation of suspension.

Judgment :-

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.

1. In this petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order of suspension dated 20th December, 1985 by declaring the same to be void-ab- initio. The petitioner also claims a declaration that the order dated 24th January, 2009 is void and that the petitioner is entitled to all benefits for the period of suspension from 20th December, 1985 till 26th March, 2008, when he was reinstated in service.

2. We may briefly advert to the relevant facts on the basis of which the petitioner claims the aforesaid relief.

3. On 28th December, 1979, the petitioner was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.) for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. He served on the said post till 28th July, 1980. On the very next day, i.e. 29th July, 1980, he was selected for appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service and joined as Judicial Magistrate First Class. For sometime, he remained posted at Banswara as Judicial Magistrate. During this period, his judgments were graded as above average and integrity as “beyond doubt”. In the inspection report, it was further remarked that “his behaviour with members of the Bar, litigants and the persons coming to the Court needs improvement”. It appears that he was not on best of terms with the local Bar, which led to his transfer.

4. On 24th November, 1985, at about 10.30 p.m., a dead body was found near Ajmer Pulia on the railway track in the city of Jaipur. The dead body was identified as that of one Mr. Suresh Chand Gupta, Advocate. A ‘Marag’ (death) case was registered on 24th November, 1985, at Serial No. 35/85 at Police Station GRP, Jaipur. It appears that the local bar association of which the deceased was a member protested that proper investigation was not being conducted about the manner in which Mr. Suresh Chand Gupta was found dead on the railway track. The members of the Bar Association insisted that his death was result of some foul play. On 11th December, 1985, that is about 20 days after the incident, wife of the deceased gave a written complaint, alleging that the Petitioner was involved in the murder of her husband. In her written complaint, she alleged that her husband had informed her about three months prior to the incident that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac for exercising his influence with the high-ups, in securing the appointment of the deceased as a member of Board of Revenue. She claimed that the money which was paid to the petitioner was arranged by her deceased husband by selling a plot of land. He had also borrowed money from her father and other relatives. Inspite of having paid the aforesaid money, her husband was not provided any appointment. Consequently, her husband had been insisting that the petitioner return the amount unnecessarily paid to him. She claimed that the petitioner had agreed to return the money and asked her husband to meet at a pre-arranged place. Her husband left home at 5.00 p.m. on 24th November, 1985 and did not return. She, therefore, concluded that the petitioner must have killed her husband on account of the dispute over money.

5. Upon coming to know about the complaint made by the wife of the deceased, the petitioner himself went to the Police Station on 18th December, 1985 and offered to join the investigation. He requested the police to complete the investigation as soon as possible, as in the meantime, he has been transferred and had to join at Vallabhnagar. In the meantime, the local bar association continued the agitation against the inaction of the police. The lawyers resorted to strike and the work at the Courts was paralysed for many days to come. The situation was so grave that when the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail came up for hearing before the High Court on 20th December, 1985, members of the Bar Association did not allow the advocate of the petitioner to ar