- (1.) COUNSEL submits that petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt. 28/09/2007 (Ann.2) on account of criminal case (FIR-146/2005) being registered for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and 420, 467, 468 & 120-B, IPC. He further submits that even charge sheet has been filed; but the charges have not been framed and the trial is lingering on and may take its own course while he is facing agony of suspension for almost three & half years having rolled by now.
(2.) COUNSEL submits that State Government issued a circular dt.07/07/2010 constituting a Committee to consider suspension of such public servants under suspension for last more than three years for review/reconsideration ? and despite representation made pursuant thereto, the Committee has not taken a decision for review so far. Counsel further submits that without examining the continuation of suspension as to whether it is required or not, the authorities are blindly invoking the circular of the State Government dt.10th August, 2001 while deciding representation/review of suspension submitted by the employee U/r 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Prem Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2005(9) RDD 3962 (Raj.) & Vishnu Kr. Gupta Vs. State (2009 WLC (UC) 701). Counsel submits that the Circular dt.10/08/2001 issued by State Govt. will not supersede statutory requirement to be complied with by the authority U/r 13(5) of CCA Rules. Without going into merits, writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for reconsideration/review of the order of suspension dt.28/09/2007, pursuant to Circular dt.07/07/2010 before competent authority U/r 13(5) of CCA Rules, who may independently examine the same without being influenced by the instructions dated 10th August, 2001 and may also take note of 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.;