SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 2210

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Shrikant Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Jaipur Vidyut & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 10630 of 2021
Decided On : 22-09-2021

The court established that a suspension in contemplation of an inquiry does not necessitate a prior hearing, affirming the discretion of the disciplinary authority.

Headnote:

[SUSPENSION] - [ADMINISTRATIVE LAW] - [The court upheld the suspension of the petitioner, emphasizing that the order was made in contemplation of an inquiry and that no legal requirement existed for providing a hearing prior to suspension. The court found no infirmity in the disciplinary authority's decision, leading to the dismissal of the petition.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of suspension dated 8.9.2021, which was issued in light of a complaint against him.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order of suspension was justified as it was made in contemplation of an inquiry, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the order.

Issues: Whether the suspension of the petitioner was justified and if the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the suspension was imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is no legal requirement to provide an opportunity for a hearing prior to the imposition of suspension in such cases, affirming the authority of the disciplinary body.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 8.9.2021, whereby, in contemplation of inquiry, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. Submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are not justified in placing the petitioner under suspension, inasmuch as, the said suspension is outcome of a complaint made against the petitioner.

3. Further submissions have been made that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing of the order dated 8.9.2021 and on that count also, the order of suspension is bad.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the order impugned.

5. The order impugned clearly spells out that in contemplation of inquiry the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

6. The submission made regarding providing opportunity of hearing has no basis. Providing opportunity of hearing before passing of order is not contemplated by any provision and, therefore, apparently, the petition has no substance.

7. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top