Honble SHETHNA, J.–This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 7.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this dismissing the writ petition No. 2454/2000 filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 15.7.2000 passed by the respondent No. 3 placing him under suspension with effect from 22.11.99, the date on which he was taken into custody, for remaining in custody for more than 48 hours.

(2). The original petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III in December, 1982. An incident took place between two grounds of the village on 9.11.99 for which cross cases have been registered against both the sides. General allegations were made in the F.I.R. filed by Pabu Dan against several accused persons including the original petitioner/appellant for the offence punishable under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324 & 436 I.P.C. Similar offences were registered against the other side. No specific role is attributed to any of the accused including the present appellant in that F.I.R. After lapse of 13 days, the petitioner was arrested on 22.11.99. He was released on bail on 8.12.99. Thus, he remained in custody from 22.11.99 to 8.12.99 i.e. for a period of nearly 16 days which is admittedly more than 48 hours. As soon as he was bailed out, he informed about the incident to the higher authorities on 9.12.99. He reported on duty but unfortunately, he was not given salary from November, 99. He made several requests to the department by way of representations but the same were not considered and at last he filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal for issuing direction to the respondents regarding his salary. The said appeal was admitted on 26.6.2000. It clearly appears that annoyed with this, the respondents passed an order dated 15.7.2000 (Annex. 6 to the writ petition) placing him under suspension with effect from 22.11.99, the day on which he was arrested and kept in custody. He challenged the said order of suspension before this Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 7.8.2000 on the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short `the Rules) with a request to the competent authority to consider his application for revocation of the suspension order within four weeks from the date of such representation.

(3). Learned counsel Mr. Purohit for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of better, alternate and efficacious remedy of making representation to the authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules. He submitted that that cannot be said to be a better, alternate and efficacious remedy. He further submitted that the impugned order of suspension was passed with a malafide intention to frustrate the appeal filed by him before the Service Appellate Tribunal. He further submitted that the impugned order of suspension is passed without application of mind only on the basis of the F.I.R. registered against him. As against that learned counsel Mr. Singh for the respondents vehemently submitted that the day on which the appellant was arrested and taken into custody, he was to be treated as under suspension as soon as 48 hours of his detention in the custody were over in view of the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Rules. He further submitted that there was no malafide intention on the part of the authority and as soon as it was brought to the notice of the authority, the formal order of suspension was passed on 15.7.2000.

(4). It is true that under Rule 13(2), a government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the Appointing Authority and shall remain under suspension until

Click Here to Read the rest of this document