Amrit Lal Rahore Vs. State of Raj. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil services (classification control and appeal) rules, 1958 - rule 13--suspension--inquiry completed and not pending--held, order of suspension suffers from lacuna.;normally under rules 13 of the civil services (classification control and appeal) rule 1958 an incumbent is suspended pending the inquiry. but in the present case, it appears, that there is no inquiry pending and the inquiry has been completed on that account and the incumbent has been suspended; the frame of the order is a lacuna.;order accoringly. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. a.k. mathur, j.1. heard leaned counsel for the parties.the petitioner was placed under suspension after the inquiry by anx. 2. petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that department has prima facie come to the conclusion on account of the so-called inquiry and thereafter they suspended the petitioner. the learned counsel submitted that by this order it would mean that there is no inquiry pending against him and this order of suspension has been passed after the inquiry as a major punishment.2. technically the contention of the learned counsel appears to be correct because normally under rules 13 of the civil services (classification control and appeal) rule 1958 an incumbent is suspended pending the inquiry. but in the present case, it appears, that there is no inquiry pending and the inquiry has been completed on that account and the incumbent has been suspended. the frame of the order is a lacuna. the order anx. 2 dated 22nd april 1989 is quashed. it is open for the respondent to suspend the petitioner again in case they find that there is a prima facie case against him and a charge sheet is contemplated.with the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.there shall be no order as to costs.