The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to suspend an employee should be exercised sparingly and after careful consideration of the nature of allegations, gravity, and seriousness. Suspension should not be resorted to lightly or routinely and should be based on serious allegations that shake public confidence in governance.

1. - The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.07.2011 whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension while working as A.En. (O & M), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, (AWNL), Makrana.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the month or March, 1989 on the post of Junior Engineer Grade I and until about a year ago had an unblemished record. In the year 2010, he has been put to repeated suspension and departmental enquiries. It is submitted that while he was posted as A.En., Chhoti Sadri for the period 03.11.2009 to 28.04.2010, he came to be put thorough departmental enquiry for inefficiency in discharging of his responsibilities and dereliction in duties but was however, exonerated in December, 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner again for the period of his posting at Chhoti Sadri, was charge-sheeted for will full absence but later on, he exonerated with a warning. On 26.03.2010, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for a minor punishment under Regulation 7 of the RSEB Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referee to as the Regulations of 1962). Pursuant to the said departmental proceedings, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.04.2010 but reinstated on 24.05.2010.

3. Petitioner submits that there after when he was transferred from Chhoti Sadri to Nagaur on the post of A.En. (O & M), he came to be charge-sheeted again for alleged failure to report cases of theft of electricity and for nonpayment of contractual dues to the contractors. Both the charges levelled against the petitioner once again drew upon his tenure at Chhoti Sadri. Even while, the said enquiry was pending, the petitioner again came to be charge-sheeted for a minor punishment on 18.05.2010 and was suspended on 27.07.2010 but reinstated on 21.01.2011. Now finally, the petitioner by the impugned order has been suspended on 18.07.2011 for the reason of a contemplated departmental proceeding against the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the power to suspend is being used casually and in a routine manner as it evident from repeated suspensions and reinstatement, and further that the petitioner in the instant case, has been suspended for an enquiry under Regulation 6 which pertains to minor punishment. Counsel submits that even while he has been reinstated in an enquiry pertaining to Regulation 7 which pertains to a major punishment he has been suspended in a enquiry to minor penalty.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Samrath Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2010 (1) WLC 562 , wherein this Court has held that suspension can be resorted to where serious allegations of misconduct are imputed or the employee is undergoing trial for the grave misconduct and where, it may be undesirable in the interest of a ran and free inquiry or the delinquent's continuation would make difficult a free investigation. Even while recognising the power of employer to suspend the employee, more so when the regulation provides, the Court has been careful to insist that in every case of suspension, its desirability is required to be examined by the competent authority by takin gin to consideration the existing facts. The Court has held that an order of suspension even though not a punishment, cannot be passed lightly or mechanically in every case of commencement of departmental enquiry. It has been further held that suspension is not required to be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that those shakes public confidence in governance while he continues to discharge public duties.

6. Counsel has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Dr. B.M. Bohra v. State of Raj., reported in 1991 (1) RLR 382 , wherein this Court has set out the manner in which power to suspend ought to be exercised. This Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that power has to be exercised sparingl