IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6599/2010 Dr. Gordhan Lal Meena vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 11/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kaleem Ahmed Khan for the petitioner. ******
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was working on the post of Medical Officer, challenging the order of his suspension dated 5.3.2008, by which he has been suspended on account of his involvement in a case for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which a criminal case was registered against him by the Anti Corruption Bureau vide FIR No.35/05. The decision to suspend the petitioner has been taken only after the Anti Corruption Bureau in the preliminary enquiry found the charge proved against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far only challan has been filed against the petitioner, but no charge has been framed by the Court concerned and the trial of the case is likely to take long time.
It is contended that the government has decided to periodically review the suspension in view of the various circulars issued by the department of Personnel, but the respondents are referring to do so in cases where the Circular of the Government is dated 10th August, 2001.
Learned counsel has further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State (2009 WLC (UC) 701).
Having regard to the facts aforesaid, no interference can be made directly by this Court. However, the petitioner is set at liberty to make a representation for review/reconsideration of the order of his suspension dated 5.3.2008 before the competent authority under Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgment (supra) and pass speaking order within three months thereafter and decision may be communicated to the petitioner who if still feels aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS/