IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the suspension of a teacher for misconduct, emphasizing the need for discipline in educational institutions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.09.2024 issued by the District Education Officer (respondent no.3), whereby he has been placed under suspension.

2. Apprising the Court about the factual matrix, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is working as Teacher Grade-III is President of Secondary Teachers Association and therefore, the respondents have proceeded vindictively against him in order to wreak vengeance.

3. He submitted that the petitioner’s services has been appreciated by the State and even his name was recommended for the State Level award. However, in changed circumstances, not only he has been deprived of his award, but a charge-sheet has been issued to harass him. He added that the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet by preferring a writ petition (S.B. CWP No. 15138/2024) in which an interim order has been passed by the High Court due to which, the respondents got annoyed and have placed the petitioner under suspension by way of order dated 19.09.2024.

4. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner’s suspension is not only actuated with mala-fide - in order to settle the score but is also without jurisdiction. He argued that the order dated 19.09.2024 is said to have been issued in exercise of powers under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’).

5. While accepting that a fresh order dated 20.09.2024 has been issued by the respondent No.3, whereby an attempt has been made to show that Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1958 shall be read as Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules of 1958, learned counsel argued that the basic order (19.09.2024), that was issued by the respondent no.3 is void, inasmuch as, powers under Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1958 can be exercised only when a government servant has remained behind the bars for a period of more than 48 hours, whereas the petitioner has never remained incarcerated.

6. Learned counsel argued that though the respondent no.3 has passed another order on 20.09.2024, but since the basic / first order dated 19.09.2024 is fundamentally void, its inherent lacuna cannot be cured by passing another order dated 20.09.2024.

7. Inviting Court’s attention towards the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1958, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the expression ‘modification’ and ‘review’ given under Chapter-VII of the Rules of 1958 operate entirely in different field and such powers cannot be used to validate an otherwise illegal order.

8. It was further contended by Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 19.09.2024, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension clearly shows that the respondents have proceeded against him vindictively. He argued that if the facts mentioned in the said order are taken to be correct, then also, they cannot be said to have been done by the petitioner in discharge of his duties. He added that no act which is done out of the work place and not during discharge of duties can be taken as misconduct.

9. Learned counsel submitted that simply because the petitioner is a Teacher, his freedom of speech and expression and right to raise grievance cannot be stifled by the respondents in the manner done. He further argued that the power to place an employee under suspension cannot be used casually and vindictively. He argued that when the facts available with the appointing/ disciplinary authority do not constitute a misconduct, he cannot place an employee under suspension.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments of this Court so also the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in support of his case:-

(i) Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147.

(ii) Om Prakash Pandiya vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. CWP No. 4073/2001 decided on 04.05.2015.

(iii) Vidarbha Industries