JUDGMENT :

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This intra court appeal is directed against judgment dated 21.12.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent assailing the legality of order dated 17.7.17 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Sawai Madhopur, placing him under suspension in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "the Rules of 1958"), has been allowed and the suspension order has been revoked. Further directions are issued that the respondent shall be posted at a place where he would not be having any public dealings and would not be in position to affect in any manner the witnesses in the criminal case and if so required, he may be posted in the district other than Sawai Madhopur under the same Range.

2. The present appeal reported to be barred by limitation for 131 days, is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented from filing the appeal within limitation for sufficient cause. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

3. The respondent has preferred an application for vacation of the interim order passed by this Court. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage.

4. The facts relevant are that a criminal case was registered at Police Station, Chauth Ka Barwara arising out of FIR No. 82/17 dated 29.4.17 for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 143, 336 IPC, which was being investigated by the respondent holding the post of Head Constable. During the course of investigation, one of the accused Ramsingh Gurjar made a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Sawai Madhopur on 15.5.17. On the basis of the complaint made, the Anti Corruption Bureau conducted the proceedings of the trap. It is alleged that the respondent being suspicious of the trap proceedings did not accept the bribe and ran away from the police station. On the basis of the proceedings taken, a case for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the respondent for demanding the bribe. Pending investigation, vide order dated 17.7.17 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Sawai Madhopur, the respondent was placed under suspension. On 6.11.17, the respondent preferred an application for revocation of the suspension order. The application preferred was rejected by the District Superintendent of Police vide communication dated 11.11.17 stating that in the matter where a Government servant against whom a case is registered by Anti Corruption Bureau/Police and is under suspension for three years, the suspension order is reviewed by the Committee constituted by the Governor after lapse of one year since filing of the charge sheet and therefore, the application preferred for reinstatement cannot be considered. The respondent challenged the legality of the suspension order dated 11.7.17 and not the order dated 11.11.17 rejecting the representation made for revocation of suspension order by way of writ petition before this Court.

5. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge opined that Rule 13 (5) of the Rules of 1958 is an independent power of the disciplinary authority to revoke the order of suspension passed by it and there is no precondition for exercise of revocation of suspension. The learned Single Judge held that the circulars issued by the State Government dated 7.7.10 and 12.1.11 laying down the limitation to examine the revocation of suspension order after a period of three years from the date of suspension and after a period of one year from the date of the charge sheet impinging on the independent power available to the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority under the Rules of 1958