The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law declared by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, stating that the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent employee, is binding on all Courts and Tribunals.

ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, as Mr. S.S. Raghav, Additional Advocate General has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, we have heard the case finally.

2. Challenge to the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge is based on the ground that Ld. Single Judge while setting aside the order of stay of suspension did not apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein it has been authoritatively pronounced by the Supreme Court that where after suspension, memorandum of charges/charge sheet has not been issued within the period of three months, the same shall result in automatic revocation of the suspension order. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that though ordinarily an order of suspension may not be stayed but the facts of the present case are extra-ordinary as continuance of the suspension order would be against the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) may be restored.

3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General would argue that the suspension order was passed on 17.03.2021 against which writ petition was filed before this Court and the appellant was allowed to make representation. Upon due consideration, the representation of the appellant was rejected. Against the rejection order, there was statutory efficacious remedy of appeal provided under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Rules of 1958’) but the appellant-employee rushed to file appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal even without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing has passed an order staying the order of suspension.

4. He would also submit that in any case the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising out of the order of suspension as the same is not covered under the expression

"Service Matter’ as provided under sub-section (f) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1976’).

5. We have heard the counsel for both the parties, perused the material available on record and the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge.

6. The first contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding the validity of an order of suspension, cannot be accepted in view of wide definition of expression ’Service matter’ given under Section 2 (f) of the Act of 1976.

7. Section 2, sub-section (f), being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:-

"(f) "Service matter" means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government Servant:-

(i) Seniority;

(ii) Promotion;

(iii) Confirmation;

(iv) Fixation of pay;

(v) An order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government Servant, otherwise than as a penalty;

(vi) Cases of reversion while officiating in a higher service, grade or post to lower service, grade or post other-wise than as a penalty;

(vii) Withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension other-wise than as the penalty;

(viii) Any other matter notified by the Government."

8. Clause (v) of sub-section (f) of Section 2 of the Act of 1976 is very wide. It reads that an order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government Servant, other-wise than as a penalty would be covered under the expression ’Service matter’. The expression ’any other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government Servant’ would obviously include the dispute arising on account of an action of suspending an employee under the service Rules