Charge-sheets should not be quashed at the initial stage and suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or routine manner. The competent authority should examine the charge-sheets and take a decision. Charge-sheets issued by an incompetent authority can be quashed. Suspension is an interim measure and should not be motivated by malice or bias.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayer to quash the charge-sheets dated 03/07/2020, 16/12/2020 & 22/12/2020 (Anx. 10, 12 and 15) respectively as well as the order dated 07/01/2021 (Anx. 17) whereby he has been placed under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958.

2. The facts, which have been stated by the petitioner, in brief, are that he was posted as an Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Mahua (Dausa) in November, 2016 and thereafter was transferred to Aameth (Rajsamand) and was relieved from Mahua (Dausa) on 08/11/2017. On the next day i.e. on 09/11/2017, he was placed under Awaiting Posting Orders (APO) and thereafter on 15/11/2017, he was posted as Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nadbai (Bharatpur). On 21/11/2017, he was transferred to Nagar Palika, Bhiwadi as Commissioner and was again placed APO on 21/12/2017 and was thereafter again posted on 22/12/2017 as Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Lalsot (Dausa). On 11/01/2019, he was placed under APO and on 13/02/2019 was posted as Commissioner, Municipal Board, Pratapgarh. On 19/09/2019, he was again placed under APO and on 30/09/2019, was posted as Commissioner, Municipal Board, Dausa. On 06/03/2020, the petitioner was again placed under APO and was relieved from his post. Vide order dated 13/03/2020 another person was posted in place of the petitioner as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Dausa.

The petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing No.4680/2020 wherein notices have been issued and in the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the order dated 06/03/2020 placing the petitioner under APO was stayed with the direction that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Dausa.

The petitioner was thereafter served with a charge-sheet on 03/07/2020 alleging that while being posted as Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mahua (Dausa) in the year 2017, the petitioner had passed unwanted and negative comments against the then Parliamentary Secretary and the then MLA. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet with supporting documents denying the allegations.

Another charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 16/12/2020 and the petitioner has not submitted reply to the charge-sheet. On 16/12/2020, the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur is said to have inspected office of Municipal Council, Dausa and the petitioner has alleged that the officers misbehaved with the staff which resulted in the staff submitting complaint regard their misbehavior which was informed to the District Collector. The District Collector issued a charge-sheet on 22/12/2020 on the basis of the said inspection report prepared by the Divisional Commissioner. It is stated that the contents of the inspection report were false and the contents of the charge-sheet were also false. It is further stated that the District Collector could not have issued charge-sheet to the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 as he is not appointing authority of the petitioner. It is stated that in this manner, the respondents, in order to come out of the interim order passed by the Court and shift the petitioner from Dausa, on 05/01/2021 one Dilip Kumar Sharma was posted and the petitioner was placed under suspension.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension order is effected on account of malice and the petitioner has been made a victim on account of the concerned MLA having made complaint against the petitioner wrongfully. It is submitted that the allegations are false. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner relates to an alleged incident of 2017 and the allegations are totally false as the petitioner did not possess an android phone at that relevant time and was not having any face book account. Learned counsel relies on a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha: (