1. The power of suspension has to be exercised sparingly and after due care. 2. The guidelines contained in the various circulars of the Department of Personnel of the Government of Rajasthan no doubt do not have the force of law and it also cannot be said that they must be followed in strict sense, but nonetheless these guidelines cannot be ignored in totality.

Headnote:
SUSPENSION - POWER OF - EXERCISE OF - CIRCULAR ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT - SCOPE OF - PROMOTION - CONSIDERATION FOR - TIME OF - CIRCULAR ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT - APPLICABILITY OF.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, challenged the order of suspension passed against him under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Continue and Appeal) Rules, 1958, on account of disciplinary proceedings. He also prayed for a direction to the State Government to give him Super-time scale in the Rajasthan Administrative Service with consequential benefits and to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the D.P.C. qua the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:

1. The power of suspension has been exercised by the Government for achieving some oblique motive and the petitioner has been made a scape-goat. 2. The circular dated 4.1.1977 is clearly ultravires to the power vested in the Government for issuing instructions to deal with the cases of Government servants who are either under suspension or against whom departmental enquiries are in progress. 3. The circular dated 17.7.1989 cannot be said to be available for consideration as on 1.4.1989, if the Government has acted upon the circular dated 17.7.1989, it has clearly committed a serious error of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension order passed against the petitioner is justified? 2. Whether the Government has acted illegally in placing the petitioners recommendation in sealed cover in so far as promotion to Super-time Scale of R.A.S. against the quota of 1989-90 is concerned?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of suspension has to be exercised sparingly and after due care. It is necessary that the competitive authority must objectively apply its mind to the nature of the allegation made against the employee, its gravity and seriousness, the record of the Government servant and the likely impact on service or the public interest of the alleged act of delinquency of the employee. 2. The power of suspension cannot be exercised as a matter of course. No unfettered discretion is vested with the competent authority to pass order of suspension of an employee according to its sweet will, whim and fancy. 3. The guidelines contained in the various circulars of the Department of Personnel of the Government of Rajasthan no doubt do not have the force of law and it also cannot be said that they must be followed in strict sense, but nonetheless these guidelines cannot be ignored in totality. 4. The guidelines have to be kept in mind and the spirit with which these guidelines have been issued must form part of the consideration, which every competent authority is required to make before passing the order of suspension. 5. Rule 28-B(15) of 1958 Rules empowers the Government to issue instructions for provisionally dealing with promotions, appointments etc. of persons who may be under suspension or against whom departmental proceeding is under progress at the time of considering the case for promotion. 6. The circular dated 4.1.1977 is clearly ultra vires to the power of the Government under the aforesaid rule.
Final Decision: 1. The order of suspension dated 24.4.1990 is declared illegal and is hereby quashed. 2. It is declared that the petitioner's case will be governed by the circular dated 4.1.1977 and not by circular dated 17.7.1989 and this circular is ultra vires to the powers conferred on the Government under Rule 28 B(15) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 in so far as it permits placement of recommendation in scaled cover in respect of an employee against whom departmental proceeding is contemplated. 3. The action of the respondent Government in placing the petitioner's name in sealed cover is declared illegal and the respondent Government is directed to open the scaled cover. 4. If the petitioner has been found suitable, he should be given promotion to Super-time Scale of Rajasthan Administrative Service w.e.f. 16.10.1989 against the vacancies of 1989-90. 5. Petitioner's prayer for quashing of charge-sheet is rejected at this stage. 6. Respondent Government is however directed to consider the reply of the petitioner within two months of the presentation of copy of this order and pass appropriate order.

JUDGMENT

1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.4.19 passed by the State Government, whereby, the petitioner has been placed and suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Continue and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on account of disciplinary proceedings. He has also may a prayer that the State Government may be directed to give Super-time scale in the Rajasthan Administrative Service with consequential benefits and for that purpose, the State Government may be directed to open the sealed cover, which contains the recommendations of the D.P.C. qua the petitioner. He has made a further prayer for striking down the Circular dated 4.1.1977 and also for quashing of the charge sheet issued to him vide memorandum dated 29.12.1989.

2. Petitioner is a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service and is holding a post in the selection scale of that service. His case is that he is eligible to be considered for promotion to the Supper Time scale of Rajasthan Administrative Service. His case was considered by the D.P.C. for promotion to the Super-time scale of R.A.S. against the vacancies of the year 1988-89. On these recommendations, the State Government passed an order on 23.2.1989. Since the petitioner has been denied promotion to Super Time scale and his juniors have been promoted, he has filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and that appeal is pending.The D.P.C. again met for making .commendations for promotion against the vacancies of 1989-90. On the recommendations of the D.P.C., the Government had passed an order on 16th October, 989. In that order, it has been recorded that the recommendations qua the petitioner have been kept in sealed cover. According to the petitioner, in reply to he appeal filed by him before the Tribunal, the State Government has taken the and that the petitioner was not found meritorious. However the fact that the recommendation qua him has been placed in a sealed cover against the vacancies f the next year goes to show that the petitioner has been found suitable for promotion, but on account of contemplated departmental enquiry his promotion as been withheld.

3. A memorandum dated 29.12.1989 for holding an enquiry under Rule 16 of 1958 Rules has been served upon the petitioner. This memorandum was accompanied by a charge sheet and statement of allegations on the basis of which he charges have been framed. The petitioner made a prayer for supply of copies f the documents. He was allowed inspection of some of the documents. There-after, he filed a detailed reply on 21.4.1990 to the charges levelled against him. according to the petitioner, although a period of one year and almost 6 months as passed since the submission of reply by him, no further step has been taken and the Government is deliberately delaying the enquiry on the one hand and as withheld the promotion of the petitioner on the other hand. The Government ]so got a news item published in the daily News-paper dated 25.4.1990 stigmatising the petitioner. This has been done in order to malign the petitioner without any justification and to give a false impression to the public that the Government is out to eradicate corruption and corrupt officers. While challenging session, the petitioner has stated that the power vested in the Government under Rule 13 of 1958 Rules has been misused in his case. He has stated that at e time when the charge sheet was served upon him, this question was excited and it was concluded that since the petitioner is not posted as U.I.T. secretary, no purpose will be served by suspending him and, therefore, no order r his suspension was passed at the time of serving the charge sheet. Even there wise, the allegations pertain to his tenure as Secretary, Urban Improvement rust, Ajmer during 1980, 1983 and 1984 and at the time of suspension he was )]ding the post of Additional Commissioner (Administration) Colonization,) caner. His

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1991 Supreme(Raj) 907

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTG.S.Singhvi, J.Sumer Singh Bhandari - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2115 of 1990.Decided On : 22-10-1991

Cases Referred (8)

Login now and unlock premium legal research

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Sumer Singh Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2115 of 1990.
Decided On : 22-10-1991