SINGHVI, J. - (1.) - On 9. 10. 1990 while admitting the writ petition, the Court had directed to issue notice to the respondents as to why the writ petition may not be decided in accordance with the decision in Gopal Singh Vs. State of Raj. and another (SB Civil Writ petition No. 184/90, decided on 03. 9. 90 (1 ).
(2.) THE petitioner, who was employed as mechanic on 1. 11. 1964 in the Medical & Health Department was placed under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry, by order dated April 10, 1974, passed by the Director, Medical and Health Services. In all 4 employees namely, Dulichand, Giriraj Singh, Gopal Singh and the petitioner had been suspended by a common order. After a period of 14 years and 20 days, a charge sheet dated 4. 11. 88 was served on the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as '1958 Rules' ). A reply was submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet on 12. 12. 1988. The petitioner attended the office for inquiry on more than one occasions. The last date fixed was 19. 6. 89. The petitioner has prayed that the order dated 10. 4. 1974 and 4. 11. 1988 may be quashed and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be cancelled and he may be granted compensation for his undue harrassment for 16 years. He submits that action be taken against the officer concerned for harassing and humiliating him. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have admitted the fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 10. 4. 1974 and the Director had also issued charge sheet to the petitioner for investigation and inquiry and thereafter Sr. Accounts Officer of the Directorate was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 5. 7. 1990. The respondents have referred to the merits of the charges framed against the petitioner. In their reply, they have stated that there is nothing for the petitioner to feel surprised that for last 16 years the inquiry has not been proceeded an inch in substance. The petitioner may have remained under suspension for 16 years, but has not been punished. According to the respondents, they are persuing the matter to get it disposed of at the earliest possible. In Writ Petition No. 184/90 Gopal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (supra) who had been a co-delinquent with the petitioner this court recorded a finding that it is not a case of mere delay of inordinate, but of gross laches and further it is a case in which the petitioner has been made to suffer the agony of unduly prolonged suspension and humiliation for no fault on his part. Therefore, the Department is guilty of laches and the fact that preliminary inquiry was held in 1987 is only a poor apology for the long lapse of time. The Court held that it was not a fit case where the petitioner should be made to suffer for such a long period. The Court proceeded to quash the suspension order dated 10. 04. 1974 as well as the charge sheet dated 4. 11. 1988 with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. In B. K. Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (2), a case decided more than 12 years ago, this court had considered various facts of suspension and observed as under : - "it is true that the Rules of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 nowhere provides the maximum period of suspension. Various government orders and circulars have been issued from time to time emphasising the necessity of keeping a government servant under suspension for the minimum time, is obviously for the two-fold reasons, firstly, because if a government servant is reinstated on the conclusion of enquiry after a long period of suspension for the minimum time, obviously for the two-fold emoluments are required to be paid for a period when he has not done any work of the State because of suspension. The second reason which is equally weighty is that if a government servant is kept under suspension for a long period, it is bound to retard his entire working capacity as constant mental torture both financial and otherwise is bound to tell upon the nerves of a government servant. "the third aspect which might not have weighed with the Government but it certainly requires consideration is that without establishing guilt of a civil servant, it tentamounts to a punishment in substance not only to him but to all those dependants of his family who look for bread, butter, roof and shelter, clothing and education towards him. In rule of law and where the Constitution if not in letter at least in spirit intends to provide all these basic requirements of a human being which I have narrated above in the form of bread and butter, roof and shelter, clothing and education to our citizens, it would be a mockery of justice of law if after a prolonged period of decades together, as has happened in this case, the starving children and dependants of family of a government servant are to be told that though we reinstate and bring the suspension to an end but so far as the salary and emoluments aspect is concerned, the suspense if not suspension would continue 'ad infinitem' till The third enquiry and proceedings come to an end. " The court further proceeded to say : - "it would be a gross misuse of the disciplinary proceedings and the power of suspension without there being any finding of misconduct and guilt, that a civil servant is thus punished for quite long time and his suspension is continued for a period which is to be kept unlimited at the sweet whims and pleasure of the disciplinary authority as has happened in this particular case. Thirteen years of suspension and then again suspense about the decision thereafter about the emoluments is unprecedented sad slate of affairs and the courts cannot become party to it by ignoring it and refraining from commenting over it, solely on the ground that there may have been some reasons which compel the disciplinary authorities or the inquiry authorities to continue the suspension. "it should not be forgotten that the suspension have got adverse implications, as it has serious demoralising effect on a civil servant, as he is looked with contempt, amongst his brother employees and also in the society. The serious magnitude of mental torture suffering and anxiety of a civil servant during prolonged suspension, can be best illustrated by comparing it with a patient lying in 'comma' in a hospital where every moment he is struggling between life and death or a patient who becomes unconscious and remains so for a long time. It is more than punishment and if I may say so a major punishment in substance though not in law. Therefore, it is expected of the State functionaries that they should resort to it only when the case and the subject matter of charge sheet which is being inquired into, is extremely of serious type where by permitting the civil servant to work during that period would result in either serious impediment in the inquiry itself or any other adverse effect in the department. In other words there must be compelling reasons for the disciplinary authority which of course cannot be tested on the test of objectivity by the courts, but it should certainly be of such serious magnitude that the disciplinary authority should feel compelled to take extreme step of suspension. Suspension should not be made a rule and should be used sparingly, cautiously and with great restraint. Again it should not be prolonged for more than 3 years normally. "
(3.) WHAT this court had held 12 years back, found its echo in the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash vs. Union of India (3), where the Supreme Court had quashed the suspension which had continued for 11 years. In Ashok Gaur vs. State of Rajasthan (4), the Division Bench of this Court has considered the nature and necessity of suspension of civil servant at length and has held that suspension should be resorted to cautiously and in rare cases when it becomes necessary to keep a government servant out of active service. The Government of Rajasthan in Department of Personnel has issued administrative instructions from time to time for expeditious disposal of inquiry proceedings. In these instructions, time and again it has been emphasised that the inquiry proceedings should not be prolonged because they not only cause harrassment and injury to the government servant but also causes loss to the public exchequer. Similarly, instructions have been issued from time to time on administrative side that suspension should be resorted to after careful scrutiny of the matter and should not be prolonged. Orders have also been issued for review of suspension after expiry of every six months period. The facts of this case show that what this court had pronounced 12 years back and the Supreme Court in the year 1987 and the various instructions issued by the Government, are of no consequence for the departmental authorities. The instructions of the Government, Department of Personnel are binding on all the departmental authorities but they have been flouted with impunity. The injury which the petitioner has suffered on account of prolonged suspension for more than 16 years, in my opinion, can never be compensated. Not only the petitioner, but his entire family has suffered during 16 years. It is true that it was for the departmental authorities to have taken decision to initiate departmental enquiry and punish the petitioner for the alleged delinquency, but the period of 16 years is not the one, which deserves any condonation by the court. In the absence of any explanation as to why the aforesaid charge sheet cannot be issued for a period of 14 years and taking into consideration the fact that the preliminary enquiry was held in 1987 and also the fact that even after issue of charge sheet in the month of April, 1988 no step was taken till July, 1990 even after appointment of inquiry officer, the respondents cannot be permitted to continue the inquiry. The petitioner has attained the age of 48 years and it would be simply perpetuation of his harrassment, if the inquiry is allowed to be held now. Moreover, in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 184/90 Gopal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the inquiry proceedings being held against a co- delinquent of the petitioner has already been quashed by this court and no purpose would be served by proceeding with the inquiry against the petitioner. On the basis of the above discussions, it must be held that the order of suspension passed on 10. 4. 1974 must be quashed, alongwith the inquiry proceedings which were initiated by memorandum dated 4. 11. 1988. It is ordered accordingly. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within 2 months from today and pay all monetary benefits to him together with fixation of his pay, increments and allowances within this period of two months. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the arrears of salary and allowance at the rate of 12% p. a. in case the entire payment is not made within two months. Looking to the nature of the case, I deem it proper to award costs to the petitioner, which is assessed at Rs. 2000/ -. The Government shall be free to recover the amount of costs from the person who may be found responsible for having not taken action for service of charge sheet for 14 years and for continuance of his suspension for 16 years. . ;