Ajay Rastogi, J.

1. The petitioner, who was working as Additional Office Kanoongo while being posted at Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer on a criminal case being registered against him by a private person, remained in custody for 48 hours and the District Collector, Ajmer after receiving this information u/R. 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 placed him under deemed suspension vide order Dt. 31.10.2011 and since then he is under suspension.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service as Patwari in the Patwar Circle Khandwa, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk and later he was promoted on the post of Inspector Land Records. One Mukesh Pareek submitted his application for opening mutation in his favour claiming himself to be an adopted son of late Hari Narain Pareek. After receipt of the application, the Tehsildar instructed the petitioner to submit his report with regard to adoption deed & pursuant to the letter of the Tehsildar Dt. 17.12.2008, the petitioner enquired from the villagers of the Village Khandwa, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk and it revealed to him that wife of late Hari Narain Pareek Smt. Heera Devi is still alive and on the basis of the information acquired by him, the petitioner prepared a report and submitted it to the Tehsildar and on the basis of the said report and whatever the evidence submitted by Mukesh Pareek, order was passed by the Tehsildar on 22.01.2009 for opening mutation in the name of Mukesh Pareek and accordingly, as per the directions of Tehsildar mutation was opened in the name of Mukesh Pareek on 06.02.2009 but at a later stage, the adoption deed furnished by Mukesh Pareek somewhere came to be re-visited and the successor in the office came across with the information that Will which he furnished and a reference has been made that the wife of testator is not alive but this fact was incorrect & she was very much alive which was further supported by the report of Patwari that she was alive even on the date when the testator signed the Will, as alleged.

3. At this point of time, Mukesh Pareek might have come across with the information that it is because of the petitioner that review of mutation is taking place and the Tehsildar called for the explanation and on whatever facts were available with him and the fact that wife of the recorded khatedar late Hari Narain Pareek - Smt. Heera Devi was still alive, the mutation which was opened in the name of Mukesh Pareek was made ineffective by Naib Tehsildar, Niwai, District Tonk vide order Dt. 25.11.2009 and at this stage the complainant Mukesh Pareek became revengeful and lodged FIR No. 12/2010 against the petitioner at Police Station Barooni, District Tonk for offence u/Sec. 166, 167, 420, 467 & 120B IPC on 10.01.2010. The petitioner also filed a complaint against Mukesh Pareek to the SDO, Niwai, District Tonk on 05.04.2010 to avoid such pressure tactics adopted by the private persons a Preliminary Enquiry was conducted by the Inspector Land Records and report Dt. 30.04.2010 (Annex. 12) was submitted by him and it was observed that complaint made by Mukesh Pareek was due to annoyance and is out of vengeance because mutation was not accepted.

4. The FIR No. 12/2010 was registered against him at Police Station Barooni, District Tonk at the instance of a private complainant Mukesh Pareek and according to the petitioner, it was a false complaint in reference to the official duties discharged by him and because he failed to succumb to his wishes.

5. But to the petitioner's dismay, he was arrested and remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, in consequence he was place under suspension u/R. 13(2) of the Rules, 1958 vide order Dt. 31.10.2011. Since it was a false complaint against the petitioner and one who works as per the provisions of law sometimes become a victim but he faced the brunt of suspension for no fault of his and these are nothing but pressure tactics which a pr