1992 Supreme(Raj) 471
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Lajpat Rai Gogna - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1568 of 1991.
Decided On : 13-01-1992
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - SUSPENSION
Headnote
SUSPENSION - GOVERNMENT SERVANT - POWER OF SUSPENSION - EXERCISE OF - GUIDELINES - SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER - ASSISTANT ENGINEER - CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AND DEFRAUDING GOVERNMENT MONEY - SUSPENSION CONTINUED FOR OVER FOUR YEARS - NO JUSTIFICATION - SUSPENSION DECLARED ILLEGAL - PETITIONER DIRECTED TO BE REINSTATED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, was suspended for over four years on the grounds of conspiracy and defrauding government money. The suspension was based on a challan filed against the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Department. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, arguing that it was passed without application of mind and that his past unblemished service record had been ignored.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension order was passed without application of mind and that the petitioner's past unblemished service record had been ignored. The court also found that there was no justification for continuing the suspension for over four years, especially since there was no allegation that the petitioner was likely to tamper with the evidence or that his continuance in service would be injurious to the public interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension order was passed without application of mind? 2. Whether the petitioner's past unblemished service record was ignored? 3. Whether there was justification for continuing the suspension for over four years?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension order was passed without application of mind and that the petitioner's past unblemished service record had been ignored. The court also held that there was no justification for continuing the suspension for over four years, especially since there was no allegation that the petitioner was likely to tamper with the evidence or that his continuance in service would be injurious to the public interest.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, declared the suspension illegal, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from the date of the order. The court also left it open to the Government to decide the treatment of the period of suspension after the conclusion of the trial or departmental proceedings.