In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
Civil Writ Petition No.6595/2010 Sandeep Kr Saxena Versus JVVNL & Ors Date of Order ::: 20/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Dr. Saugath Roy, for petitioner.
Counsel submits that petitioner while holding the post of Asstt. Engineer was placed under suspension vide order dt.13/07/2005 (Ann.2) passed in exercise of powers under Regulation 9(b) of erstwhile REB Employees’ (CC&A) Regulations, 1962 on account of criminal case being registered for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Counsel further submits that after the challan being filed, charges were framed, and the trial is lingering on and may take its own course while he is facing agony of suspension for almost five years by now.
Counsel submits that the respondent however, without examining the continuation of suspension as to whether it is required or not, is blindly invoking the circular of the State Government dt.10th August, 2001 while deciding representation/review of suspension submitted by the employee.
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); and Samrath Singh Vs. State (2010(1) WLC 562). Counsel submits that the Circular issued by the State Government dt.10/08/2001 will not supersede the statutory requirement which is to be complied with by the authority under CCA Regulations.
Without going into merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for reconsideration/ review of the orders of suspension dt. 05/12/2005 (Ann.2) U/Reg.9(5) of the RSEB Employees (CC&A) Regulation, 1962 before the competent authority who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of the judgments (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.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p.2/
6595CW2010July20DE-SuspRepRSEB.doc