Prolonged suspension of an employee without substantial evidence post-disciplinary proceedings is arbitrary and unjustified.

ORDER

1. By way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged his suspension order dated 02.11.2018 as also the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Police Superintendent, Bharatpur, declining to revoke the suspension of petitioner.

2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner while posted as Head Constable at Police Station, Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur, vide order dated 02.11.2018 (Ann.4), invoking powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958 (hereinafter for short 'the CCA Rules of 1958'), was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry. Thereafter, on the basis of a preliminary inquiry, one FIR No.323/2018 dated 05.11.2018, was registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, wherein petitioner was implicated as an accused on allegation of hatching conspiracy and misusing his post for implicating one person Karan Singh in a criminal case of smuggling illegal weapons. Petitioner was arrested in this criminal case but later on, released on bail. After completion of investigation of FIR No.323/2018 against petitioner, prosecution sanction was accorded and the charge sheet dated 04.01.2019 came to be filed for offences u/s 193, 195, 365 and 120-B of IPC and 3/25 & 29 of the Arms Act, 1959. At present, session case against the petitioner is pending at the stage of prosecution evidence before the Court of Additional District Judge, Bharatpur. Apart from criminal trial, it appears from record that memo of charges dated 14.05.2019 was served upon the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules 1958 were initiated. It is not in dispute that after full dressed inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings have been concluded and culminated into punishment to the petitioner vide order dated 16.04.2022, with stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner states that he challenged the punishment order dated 16.04.2022 before the Appellate Authority, but could not pursue the appeal on merits and the same has been dismissed and the punishment, inflicted upon him, has attained finality.

3. Petitioner submits that he was placed under suspension vide order dated 02.11.2018 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and the same have been culminated on 16.04.2022 by imposing penalty against the petitioner with stoppage of three annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Hence, thereafter continuation of his suspension is wholly illegal and unwarranted. Petitioner has placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal [(2013) 16 SCC 147], wherein the Apex Court has observed that suspension order should be passed only where there is strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily to be served a major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank etc.

4. Petitioner states that denial to revoke his suspension merely drawing an apprehension against the petitioner that he might be adversely affect the witnesses of prosecution in session trial, is wholly arbitrary as there is no evidence or material before respondents to draw such an apprehension and the same is wholly arbitrary, as well as unfounded. Petitioner states that he has already suffered suspension for more than 3 years and even after filing the challan in criminal case against him, more than one year has passed, so as per circular of State Government, he deserves to be re-instated and his suspension be ended. Petitioner has further stated that his retirement is due on 31.07.2023, therefore, his suspension ought to have been revoked by respondents, however, the respondent No.3 has declined to revoke the suspension vide order dated 04.05.2022, which is arbitrary, illegal and against law. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of