[2025:RJ-JD:20094]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6026/2016 Kantilal Kant ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Chundawat.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

27/03/2025

1. Petitioner (a Junior Engineer), is before this Court seeking quashing of an administrative order dated 06.05.2016, vide which, he was suspended from service under Rule 13 of CCA Rules, 1958 due to grant of prosecution sanction on account of following FIRs :-

(1)-133/2009 dated 15.06.2009 registered against him under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Sections 409, 420 & 120-B of IPC;

(2)-134/2009 dated 15.06.2009 registered against him under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC;

(3)- 135/2009 dated 15.06.2009 registered against him under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 &

120-B of IPC;

(4)- 136/2009 dated 15.06.2009 registered against him under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 &

120-B of IPC;

(5)- 138/2009 dated 15.06.2009 registered against him under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC;

(6)- 139/2009 dated 15.06.2009 registered against him under Sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Sections 409, 420 & 120-B of IPC;

2. Vide an interim order dated 30.05.2016 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, operation and effect of the impugned suspension order was stayed in the following terms:-

“Heard.

It is contended by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been placed under suspension by an order dated 06.05.2016 and sanction has been given to prosecute the petitioner by the same order. An FIR was lodged in the year 2009 against the petitioner and to date no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. It is also contended an audit report came into existence by which all objections have been dropped.

Issue notice as to why this petition for writ be not accepted as prayed. Issue notice of the stay application also. The rule issued is made returnable within favour weeks.

In the meantime effect and operation of the order impugned dated 6.5.2016 shall remain stayed.”

3. Apropos, petitioner continues to discharge his services without being suspended during pendency of the writ proceedings.

4. Controversy centering on the scope and breadth of the core legal issue concerning the continuation of the suspension of a government servant during the pendency of an investigation or criminal trial in connection with a criminal offence, and the parameters governing the same, have been decided in a detailed order/judgment dated 27.03.2025, rendered by this Court in case title Naru Lal Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14863/2016.

5. The reasons and discussion contained in Naru Lal Meghwal’s judgment shall be read as part and parcel of the instant order and same are not being repeated for sake of brevity. However, it is deemed appropriate that the concluding part of the judgment be reproduced for ready reference, which is as below:

“CONCLUSION

25. Two questions thus arise i.e. first, whether a government servant, either accused in an FIR or an under trial in a pending criminal proceeding or proposed to be prosecuted upon grant of administrative sanction for prosecution, can continue to be suspended from service until the conclusion of trial till he is acquitted ? Second, does such a suspension, when prolonged due to delay not attributable to the suspended government servant, constitute a collateral punishment, imposed solely on the state’s harboring a