IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2231/10 Dr. Padam Chand Jain Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 18/02/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for petitioner ***
Instant petition has been filed by petitioner, who is holding the post of Associate Professor in the department of ENT. One FIR No.150/08 was registered against him for the offence u/s.7,13(1)D(2) under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 26th June, 2008 and there was an allegation against him that from the complainant, who was his patient admitted in the hospital in his department on 14th June, 2008 demanded a sum of Rs.700/- to get himself operated. Obviously after sanction was granted by the competent authority u/s.19 of the Act challan has been filed against petitioner and looking to the nature of allegation levelled against him, the authority took decision to place him under suspension in exercise of power U/r.13 of CCA Rules vide order dt.26th February, 2009. At this stage, he earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.2933/09, which was dismissed on 20th April, 2009. However, it was observed that if any subsequent development takes place, he will be at liberty to file application for revocation of suspension.
Counsel submits that he has been placed under suspension only because there is a circular issued by the Government dt.10th August, 2001 and the Government has not independently examined while taking decision as to whether in the facts of instant case, suspension was at all required.
Submission made by Counsel is bereft of merit for the reason that authority is competent to place an employee under suspension against whom any criminal offence is under investigation or trial U/r.13 of CCA Rules, 1958.
In the instant case after FIR was registered against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, investigation was made and prima facie allegation was found to be justified. Taking note thereof, challan has been filed against him and in these circumstances, decision was taken by the authority placing him under suspension, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
So far as submission made by Counsel in respect of circular dt.10th August, 2001 is concerned, that could be examined, if it is a case of prolonged suspension. In the instant case, challan has been filed and he is under suspension since February, 2009 and it is not a case of prolonged suspension at the moment and apart from it, this Court while disposing of earlier writ petition only observed that in regard to change in circumstances, he may file application for revocation. In the instant case, no change in circumstances has come forward which may favour the petitioner for revocation of the order of suspension at this stage.
This Court finds no substance in the instant writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
FRBOHRA2231CW10 18-2.do