Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1145
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Bhawani Shanker Vyas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16778/2022
Decided On : 16-11-2022
Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate and Chayan Bothra, Advocate., for the Appellant
Sunil Beniwal, AAG and Kunal Upadhyay, Advocate., for the Respondents
The exercise of power under Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of 1958 must be in compliance with the provisions of the rule and cannot be based on long-pending disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Suspension - Exercise of Power under Rule 13 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 13 (1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Officer, was placed under suspension based on the pending disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2020 and 2022 cannot form the basis for suspension after a long period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension order was based on a mechanical exercise of power without reference to the note-sheet and in violation of Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of 1958. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the suspension order.
Issues: The key issue was the validity of the suspension order based on the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension based on long-pending disciplinary proceedings was unjustified and in violation of Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of 1958.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the suspension order dated 31.10.2022 was quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 31.10.2022 (Annex. 6) by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
2. The petitioner was working on the post of Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sri Dungargarh. It is, inter-alia, indicated that by order dated 20.10.2022 (Annex. 1) the petitioner was placed Awaiting Posting Order ('APO'), on 21.10.2022 the order was stayed by this court in second stay petition filed by the petitioner in SBCWP No. 6185/2020. Whereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Municipal Board, Bayana on 27.10.2022. On 31.10.2022 the petitioner, who was performing his duties as Executive Officer, was severally manhandled by the officer, who was posted in place of petitioner when the petitioner was placed APO alongwith his team of supporters, regarding which the petitioner lodged an FIR.
3. As a result, by way of a wholly malafide exercise of powers by making reference to Rule 13 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('Rules of 1958'), the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 (Annex. 6) has been passed placing the petitioner under suspension.
4. Submissions have been made that power under Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of 1958 can only be exercised in case an enquiry is pending or the same is in contemplation. Though an enquiry under Rule 17 or the Rules of 1958 initiated on 24.01.2020, under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 initiated on 25.09.2020, another enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules initiated on 01.06.2022 are pending against the petitioner, the same after passage of sufficiently long time since the issuance of the charge sheets, cannot form the basis for placing the petitioner under suspension.
5. Submissions have been made that the entire action of the respondents has been in response to the action taken by the petitioner while working as Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sri Dungargarh, whereby he had cancelled illegal Patta(s) and initiated action against the wrong doers and therefore, the exercise of power placing the petitioner under suspension being ex-facie illegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Submissions have also been made that in the order impugned, the petitioner has been addressed as AAO-II, whereas the petitioner is Revenue Inspector and on that count also the order impugned is bad.
6. Reliance has been placed on Jodharam Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11696/2022 decided on 01.09.2022.
7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, inter-alia, indicating that a communication dated 31.10.2022 (Annex. R/1) was received from the District Collector, Bikaner inter-alia indicating that the S.D.O., Sri Dungargarh has reported that the officer, who was posted while placing the petitioner APO i.e. Sh. Lalit Singh Detha, had taken the charge of the post on 21.10.2022 and the petitioner was transferred on 27.10.2022, however, he has not been relieved so far, which action of the petitioner amounts to violation of Government orders and therefore, action be initiated against the petitioner. Based on which, a note-sheet was drawn by the Assistant Administrative Officer for placing the petitioner under suspension, which was approved by the Additional Director and the Director, based on which the order impugned was passed.
8. Submissions have been made that the claim made that the petitioner is Revenue Inspector and has been shown as Assistant Accounts Officer-II, is factually incorrect, as in seniority list for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer-II dated 29.06.2022 (Annex. R/3), the petitioner has been shown as the senior most officer in the said cadre as on 01.04.2022. Further submissions have been made that on 17.08.2022 again a charge sheet (Annex. R/4) under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 has been issued to the petitioner. It was submitted that in the circumstances of the case, wherein the petitioner instead of following
