High Court Rajasthan High Court

Radhey Shyam Meena vs State Of Raj & Ors on 9 April, 2010

Rajasthan High Court
Radhey Shyam Meena vs State Of Raj & Ors on 9 April, 2010
    

 
 
 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4805/2010

Radhey Shyam Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Date of Order ::: 09.04.2010

Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq


Shri Mahendra Sharma, Counsel for petitioner
####

By the Court:-

Learned counsel submits that petitioner, while working on the post of Assistant Engineer, was placed under suspension vide order Annexure-1 dated 15.10.2003 under Regulation No.9 of RSEB Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1962 on account of a criminal case being registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Counsel submits that criminal case is pending at the stage of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses and trial will take its own time and petitioner is facing agony of suspension for last more than six-and-a-half year by now.

He although made representation for review/reconsideration but same remained unheeded which compelled him to approach this Court by filing instant petition.

Counsel has placed reliance on judgments of this Court reported in 2005 (9) RDD 3962 (Raj.), Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, decided on 20.09.2005. Counsel further submits that Circular issued by State Government dated 10.08.2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under Regulation 9(5) of the Regulations, 1962.

Without going into merits of the matter, this Court considers it appropriate to direct petitioner to make a fresh representation for review/reconsideration of the order of suspension dated 15.10.2003 (Annexure-1) before competent authority under Regulation 9(5) of the Regulations, 1962, who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgments referred to above and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to petitioner and petitioner, if still feels aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.

With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

//Jaiman//