The timing and justification of a suspension order in relation to a pending departmental inquiry must be carefully considered to ensure it is not an attempt to frustrate court orders.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 29.7.2022 (Annex.6), whereby, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. Submissions have been made that by order dated 8.7.2022 (Annex.3), the petitioner was transferred to Banswara. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed SBCWP No.10173/2022, wherein, on 15.7.2022, a Bench at Jaipur stayed the order dated 8.7.2022. Apparently to negate/frustrate the interim order granted by the Court at Jaipur Bench, on 29.7.2022 by indicating that as an inquiry initiated against the petitioner on 1.10.2021 (Annex.5) under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 is pending, he has been placed under suspension, his headquarter has been fixed at Jaisalmer and it has been directed that he would be paid his subsistence allowance from Kishangarh.

3. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension is only with a view to frustrate the interim order granted by the Court and that the petitioner could not have been suspended for pending inquiry, which pertain to his working while he was posted at Nagaur and that also after 9 months when the petitioner had already filed his response to the charge-sheet under Rule 17 and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the reply filed made submissions that the order impugned does not call for any interference as several inquiries are pending against the petitioner and the latest being a charge-sheet issued under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 dated 10.8.2022 (Annex.4) and, therefore, the order impugned cannot be questioned by the petitioner.

5. Further submissions have been made that the report has been submitted on 11.3.2021 (Annex.R/2) by the Committee of three officers regarding the conduct of the petitioner and, therefore, also, the plea raised by the petitioner has no substance. It was sought to be convessed that as the order dated 29.7.2022 has been passed in contemplation of inquiry, which has culminated in charge-sheet dated 10.8.2022, the order does not call for any interference and the petition deserves dismissal.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. The order impugned dated 29.7.2022 (Annex.6) inter alia reads as under:-

vkns'k

pawfd Jh tks/kkjke fo'uksbZ] rRdkyhu vk;qDr] uxj ifj"kn] ukxkSj ds gky vk;qDr] uxj ifj"kn] fd'kux< ds fo:) ,d foHkkxh; tkap fopkjk/khu gSA vr% jktLFkku flfoy lsok1@4 oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k ,oa vihy 1/2 fu;e] 1958 ds fu;e131/411/2 esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds rgr Jh tks/kkjke fo'uksbZ] vk;qDr] uxj ifj"kn] fd'kux< dks rqjUr izHkko ls fuyfEcr fd;k tkrk gSA fuyEcudky esa budk eq[;ky; uxj ifj"kn] tSlyesj esa jgsxk vkSj budks fu;ekuqlkj thou fuokZg HkRrs dk Hkqxrku uxj ifj"kn] fd'kux< ls ns; gksxkA (emphasis supplied)

8. A perusal of the order impugned indicates that on account of pending departmental inquiry, which pertained to the period while the petitioner was posted as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Nagaur, exercising powers under Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1958, the petitioner has been placed under suspension The charge-sheet, which has formed the basis and regarding which the departmental inquiry is pending against the petitioner, was issued under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 on 1.10.2021 (Annex.5), as to what prompted the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension after almost 10 months of issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner and that also when he was working at Kishangarh i.e. not at Nagaur, cannot be deciphered from the response filed by the respondents. It is besides the fact that the petitioner had already responded to the charge-sheet.

9. The reliance on the purported inquiry report dated 11.3.2021 (Annex.R/2) is of no consequence, inasmuch as, the same has not formed the basis of passing of the order dated 29.7.2022, that also after over 15 months of submission of t