2016 Supreme(Raj) 1591
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Chandu Kanwar D/o Shri Mohan Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj. Department & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ(CW) No. 10106 of 2016.
Decided On : 22-09-2016
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Khet Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Patel, Additional Government Counsel.
A suspension order can only be passed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, 1958 - RULE 13 - Suspension order quashed as it was passed without any disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner and without any inquiry pending or contemplated.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk cum Gram Sevak, was placed under suspension by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali, on the grounds of misbehavior with the Sub-Divisional Officer and retaining official record at her residence. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, arguing that it was passed without any disciplinary proceedings pending against her and without any inquiry pending or contemplated.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suspension order was not sustainable as it was passed without any disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner and without any inquiry pending or contemplated. The Court also held that the ground of retaining official record at her residence was without any foundation as the record was in the record room, which was now in the possession of the respondents.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension order was passed in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958? 2. Whether the grounds for suspension were valid?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, provides that a suspension order may be passed only where a disciplinary proceedings against the employee is contemplated or is pending, or where a case against the employee in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. In the instant case, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner and no criminal case was under investigation or trial. Therefore, the suspension order was not passed in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the suspension order. However, the respondents were given the liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
1. - The instant writ petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 26.08.2016, by which, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk cum Gram Sevak and Secretary, Gram Panchayat Janunda, Panchayat Samiti Marwar Junction, District Pali. It is contended that petitioner was discharging duties satisfactorily, however, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Janunda was not amicable towards her. On 26.08.2016 a public hearing of the M.L.A of the area was to be held along with Sub-Divisional Officer, Marwar Junction and the petitioner was informed to remain present at the meeting. The petitioner attended the meeting but due to her illness, could not remain present right through the entire meeting and submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer requesting him to allow her to leave head-quarters. However, on the same day i.e 26.08.2016 the petitioner was served with an office order whereby she was placed under suspension by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali while exercising powers conferred upon him under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') on the ground that during the public hearing of the M.L.As., the petitioner misbehaved with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Marwar Junction and further on the ground that she used to keep official record at her residence instead of keeping the same in the office. By the impugned order dated 26.08.2016, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge to the nearest Gram Sevak and to submit a compliance report. Aggrieved against the suspension order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Mr. Khet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the suspension order has been passed without any disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner and as such there is no compliance of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. It is further argued that the impugned suspension order has been passed at the behest of the Sarpanch and as such, the same is vitiated on account of malafide. It is also submitted that ground for suspension is for retaining office record at her residence and the said reason is without any basis since the authorities themselves have put a lock upon the room of the office of the Gram Panchayat Janunda where the record is lying. To substantiate the fact the petitioner is being harassed, the details of various litigation pending has been given. Even a charge sheet came to be served upon the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958.
4. Per contra, Mr. Manish Patel learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of present writ petition. It is argued that the suspension order has been passed on account of misbehavior of the petitioner and she had retained the official record at her residence. It is argued that the suspension order is appealable under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules of 1958, therefore the writ per se is not maintainable. It is also argued that the suspension order is not punishment and as such, the Court should not interfere in the order so passed. It is also submitted that the suspension order can be passed in contemplation of initiation of inquiry and it is not necessary for the department to pass the order of suspension only after disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. Reliance has been placed upon [1] Ramji Upadhyay v. State of Rajasthan [2007] 3 WLN 421 , 2. S.A. Khan v. State of Haryana AIR 1993 SC 1152 , [3] Laxman Singh Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1176/1999 decided on 05.11.1999 , [4] Municipal Board, Mt. Abu & Anr. v. Hajari Vishnu & Ors. in D.B. Civil Special Appeal [Writ] No. 609/2008 decided on 04.03.2009 , [5] State Bank Of India & Ors. v. Harbans Lal AIR 2000 SC 2219 , [6
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
