Nature Of Allegations Are Not So Grave & The Charges Are Petty In Nature: Rajasthan HC Quashes Suspension Order Against Govt. Employee
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a suspension order issued against a Government Employee observing that the nature of allegations are not so grave and the charges are petty in nature.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition by the petitioner against his suspension order for not being in accordance with Rule 13 of The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and without reasonable and probable cause.
The single-bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed, " The provision of placing an employee under suspension is not punitive but preventive. As a precaution that the employee may not influence/hamper the course of inquiry or temper with the material related to it; an order under Rule 13 can be passed, however when the alleged misconduct is of a trivial nature and that is relatable to his previous place of posting which is around 700 kms away from his present place of posting still passing an] order of suspension seems to be punitive instead of a preventive one. It cannot be ignored that the alleged inquiry is to be commenced under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 which is commonly known as less grave then to a proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958."
The petitioner was represented by Advocate C.S. Kotwani while the respondent was represented by AAG Mahaveer Bishnoi and Advocate Harshwardhan.
The petitioner while working on the post of AME in the office of Mining Engineer, Bundi II was transferred to Jaisalmer. After joining at Jaisalmer, the petitioner was suspended according to the Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958. The suspension order stated that disciplinary proceedings under the CCA Rules, 1958 were being considered against him
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the actions of the Respondents in suspending the Petitioner from the post of AME without providing any reason is illegal and arbitrary. He averred that the order doesn't reflect any reason to suspend the petitioner from the post and further it was contended that the petitioner’s headquarters has been changed from Jaisalmer to Udaipur. It was further argued that respondent department has committed a grave error of law as well as fact while passing the impugned order. The counsel for the petitioner further contented that the incident of his misconduct occurred when he was posted at Bundi and currently he is posted in Jaisalmer which is a totally different geographical and administrative jurisdiction and his past conduct should not be considered to suspend him from his current posting. He cannot influence or obstruct any investigative process as he is transferred to a new place, so suspending without giving- any valid reasons appears to be both unwarranted and punitive in nature rather than preventive or corrective.
He argued that the suspension order stated that it is according to the Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958 which provides for suspension only when a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending but in this case, the order doesn't specify that any disciplinary proceedings were either initiated or currently pending against the petitioner at the time of issuing the suspension order.
It was further pointed out by the counsel that neither the charge-sheet was served nor any disciplinary proceeding is contemplated and no investigation or trial to any criminal offence is pending against the petitioner
The Court at the outset pointed out that the order passed by the respondent department was passed in a casual manner or in an unscrupulous way that they did not even checked the post of the employee whom they are suspending. The way of approach adopted by the respondent department in committing a grave error needs due diligence and procedural propriety while issuing the suspension orders, the court stated.
"In this case, no proceeding was under contemplation or pending against the petitioner when he was ordered to be suspended and so also no criminal offence was under investigation or trial and therefore the action of the respondent department is not fulfilling the requirements needed under Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958. The petitioner was transferred to Jaisalmer which is far from his previous place of posting where the alleged misconduct was done and there is no reasonable possibility that the petitioner’s presence in Jaisalmer can interfere with any potential inquiry or investigation related to his previous place of posting," the court observed.
The Court concluded that the department did suspend the petitioner as a punitive measure, however the same is arbitrary given the facts and circumstances of the case.
"The manner of dates and events showing that the order of suspension was not in accordance with the spirit of law but passed in obstinacy. The inquiry for which the charge-sheet is issued in the matter is of Rule 17 of th CCA Rules, 1958 wherein the nature of allegations are not so grave and the charges are petty in nature. This Court feels that for the projected charges, inquiry may be initiated but during the course of inquiry his suspension is not required particularly when the charges are related to his previous place of posting in Bijolia. This court deems it fit to exceed to the prayer made by the petitioner and thus the writ petition succeeds," the court observed.
The petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Prakash Mali vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:43433)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate C.S. Kotwani
Respondent- AAG Mahaveer Bishnoi and Advocate Harshwardhan
