The power of suspension should be exercised sparingly and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. Continuation of suspension without any reasonable case and without taking active steps to institute a departmental enquiry would reflect arbitrariness on the part of the disciplinary authority.

1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 4th September, 1986 whereby the petitioner was put under suspension with immediate effect pending an enquiry in the matter of misappropriation/embezzlement.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner commenced to discharge his duties as Accountant in III Battalion. R. A. C. Jaipur in October, 1983 and is continuing in the said battalion. In addition to his usual work he was entrusted with the work of three cash books of private funds of the same battalion. The said private funds were Bank Funds, Welfare Funds and Benevolent Fund of the III Battalion R. A. C. Jaipur. The case of the petitioner is that though he has maintained all the 3 cash books regularly and complete in all respects according to the practice and procedure prevailing in the department, which was adopted by his predecessors. The accounts maintained by the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned private funds have been audited by the Internal Checking Party as well as by the party from the A. G. Office from time to time. The Internal Checking Party inspected the accounts of the private funds in the month of March 1986 and found the cash books and the balance in order. A certificate to this effect was granted by the Inspection Party. The Internal Checking Party again made inspection in the month of April 1986 and was satisfied that the accounts are in order. Similarly the Audit Party from the office of Accountant General Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as the Internal Checking Party audited the accounts in the year 184-85 and found the accounts perfectly in order. The case of the petitioner is that a report of embezzlement of Rs. 1,07,396.03 in the private funds has been made against him and the petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 4th September, 1986 on the basis of incorrect audit report of the Internal Checking Party. The contention of the petitioner as set forth in the writ petition is that the report of the Internal Checking Party is absolutely illegal and has been prepared on the basis of incorrect appreciation of the record and cash books. In the writ petition the petitioner has also pleaded that a First Information Report has also been registered against the petitioner on 23rd August 1986. Aggrieved by the order of suspension the petitioner had filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1 under rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The appeal is still pending and has not been decided inspite of several reminders. The case of the petitioner in short is that after his suspension neither the chargesheet has been prepared by the respondent nor challan has been filed in the police case. In the criminal case, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr. P. C. by the learned District Judge, Jaipur. For contesting the bail application the prosecution took 18 adjournments. but still could not show any prima facie case against the petitioner and consequently the bail application was allowed on 10th April, 1987. It is further averred by the petitioner that his suspension is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government through various circulars. The petitioner has thus, challenged the order of suspension submitting that the order of suspension is by way of penalty, vexatious and inexpedient.

3. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and allowed. After receipt of the notice, the respondents have filed their reply. They have supported the order of suspension and have stated that from the audit report prima facie case of embezzelment is made out against the petitioner. The respondents have also contended that a police case No. 302/86 under section 409 IPC is pending investigation and a departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner. As regards