Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Jageshwar Prasad Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8963/2021
Decided On : 01-09-2021
[SUSPENSION] - [DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS] - [The court addressed the legality of the suspension order against the petitioner, emphasizing the need for timely review of suspension in light of established legal precedents. It interpreted the powers of the disciplinary authority under the relevant rules, asserting that limitations imposed by government circulars on the revocation of suspension were unjustified. The court mandated a review of the petitioner's representation based on prior rulings, thereby reinforcing the principle of timely administrative action.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 24.12.2019, arguing that a challan had already been filed against him and that he had not been reinstated despite the passage of time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had the obligation to review the suspension order and the petitioner's representation in accordance with the legal principles established in the case of Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority was justified in not reviewing the suspension order despite the filing of a challan and the time elapsed since the suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the limitations set by government circulars regarding the revocation of suspension were not binding and that the disciplinary authority must consider the case for revocation of suspension at any time, particularly in light of the circumstances presented by the petitioner.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with a directive to the disciplinary authority to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks, allowing the petitioner to submit further documents if necessary.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 24.12.2019 (Annex.-1), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
The petitioner made a representation (Annex.-10), inter alia, indicating that already challan against the petitioner has been filed and despite passage of sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not been reinstated and, therefore, the order of suspension requires review and the petitioner deserves to be reinstated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to judgment in Manvendra Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors.: SBCW No. 4276/2018, decided on 21.12.2018 submitted that the Court in the said judgment has dealt with the powers of the disciplinary authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958 and appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 and has held that the various circulars issued by the State Government laying down limitation to examine the revocation of suspension order after a period of three years from the date of suspension/after a period of one year from the date, the charge-sheet has been filed, was not justified and it was open for the authorities to examine the case for revocation of suspension even prior to the said periods fixed in the circular.
In the over all fact circumstances of the case as projected as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of, the respondent No.3-disciplinary authority, is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner (Annex.-10) in light of the judgment in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra).
The needful may be done by the respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner.
The petitioner would be free to file a further representation alongwith requisite documents before the disciplinary authority.
The court established that disciplinary authorities have the discretion to review suspension orders without being bound by arbitrary time limits set by government circulars, ensuring timely administr....
The authorities have the discretion to examine the revocation of suspension even prior to the periods fixed in the circular issued by the State Government.
Suspension should be periodically reviewed and should not be used as a punitive tool.
The need for continuation of suspension must be assessed based on the nature of allegations, materials, and the position held by the concerned employee.
Government must periodically review prolonged suspensions per G.O. guidelines, ensure subsistence allowance, and expedite disciplinary proceedings.
Suspension under CCS(CCA) Rules lapses if not reviewed before 90 days expiry; subsequent extensions cannot revive invalid order.
Prolonged suspension of an employee without substantial evidence post-disciplinary proceedings is arbitrary and unjustified.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and court judgments, and failure to do so renders the sus....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
