Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Ashok Singh S/o Late Laxman Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Forest Department and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10567/2024
Decided On : 27-08-2024
Suspension - Writ Petition - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 - The court found the suspension order was issued without proper authority and lacked due application of mind, violating the principles of fair administrative action.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Range Forest Officer, was suspended following a compromise between villagers and revenue officials after poaching incidents. The suspension was challenged as being issued without proper authority and consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the suspension order was invalid due to lack of authority and failure to apply due diligence, as it was based solely on a compromise rather than a proper inquiry.
Issues: Whether the suspension order was valid given the authority that issued it and the lack of a charge-sheet or proper justification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suspension must be based on a thorough examination of facts and issued by the competent authority, which was not the case here.
Result: The suspension order was quashed and set aside.
ORDER :
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by respondent No.3-Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HQ), Rajasthan whereby, the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner is working on the post of Range Forest Officer Grade-II in the office of Regional Forest Officer, Raisinghnagar, District Anupgarh. On 11.06.2024, the petitioner constituted a flying squad of five members for keeping in check the poaching activities of Chinkaras (Deer) in his range area. On 19.06.2024, two Chinkaras (Deer) were found dead and an FIR was registered by the petitioner on 20.06.2024. Three persons were arrested for killing of those two Chinkaras. After the incident, there occurred agitation in the area and, therefore, a meeting was held in which a compromise was entered into between the villagers of the Village Buddha Johad (Dabla) and certain Revenue Officials on 20.06.2024. For resolving the dispute and to calm down the agitation among the villagers, certain conditions were agreed in the compromise deed and one such condition was placing the petitioner under suspension immediately. This compromise deed was communicated to the respondent-Department and vide order dated 21.06.2024 the petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent No.3-Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HQ), Rajasthan. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 21.06.2024 placing the petitioner under suspension has been passed without any application of mind as the authority has issued the suspension order in pursuance of the compromise entered into between the Revenue Officials and the Villagers on 20.06.2024. Learned counsel further submits that though there was no negligence/fault on the part of the petitioner in the official discharge of his duties, however, he has been placed under suspension.
5. Learned counsel also submits that in the case of petitioner, the order dated 21.06.2024 has been passed by a person who is incompetent to issue the suspension order for the reason that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, (HQ), Rajasthan, whereas the order of suspension has been passed by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 21.06.2024 may be quashed and set-aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in anticipation of the Disciplinary Inquiry which is likely to be instituted against him shortly. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that because of the increase in the poaching activities in the area, immediate and strict action was required to be taken in the matter, and since the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duties in preventing the illegal poaching of the Chinkaras (Deer) in the area, he was placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the order dated 21.06.2024 has been passed by the competent authority and no interference is warranted in the present case. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.
7. On a pointed query being raised by the Court to the counsel for the respondents, he has very fairly submitted that no charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner till date.
8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.
9. The admitted position of the fact is that the petitioner is working on the post of Range Forest Officer, Grade-II in the Anupgarh District and on account of an incident which occurred on 19.06.2024, wherein, two Chinkaras were killed, an FIR was reg
Suspension of a government employee must be justified by proper authority and a thorough examination of circumstances, not merely on external pressures or compromises.
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
The main legal point established is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and failure to do so ma....
Suspension orders must comply with Supreme Court guidelines, requiring a reasoned extension beyond three months; failure to do so renders the suspension unsustainable.
Suspension orders must comply with procedural requirements, including a reasoned extension within three months, as established by the Supreme Court, failing which the order is unsustainable.
Suspension orders must comply with Supreme Court directives, requiring a reasoned extension if a charge sheet is served; otherwise, they are unsustainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
