Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Prakash Mali, S/o. Sh. Manak Ram Mali - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Mines And Petroleum Department and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14688 Of 2024
Decided On : 22-10-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Suspension of employee - The petitioner challenged the suspension order as arbitrary and not in accordance with Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958, which allows suspension only when disciplinary proceedings are pending or criminal investigations are ongoing. The court found that the suspension was not justified as it lacked proper reasoning and was issued in a casual manner. The court quashed the suspension order and allowed the petitioner to resume duties. (Paras 8, 9, 13, 14)
(B) Suspension - Legal principles - The court emphasized that suspension is not a punishment but a preventive measure, and must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. The court noted that the alleged misconduct was trivial and related to a previous posting, making the suspension unnecessary. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was suspended without proper justification while holding the post of Assistant Mining Engineer. The suspension order was issued after a charge-sheet was served, but it did not specify any ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner challenged the suspension in court.
Findings of Court:
The court found the suspension order arbitrary and not in accordance with the CCA Rules, allowing the petitioner to resume his position.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suspension was justified and whether proper procedures were followed in issuing the suspension order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the suspension lacked justification and was issued without adherence to the required legal standards, emphasizing the need for procedural propriety in such matters.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
(Farjand Ali, J.)
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent in suspending him without reasonable and probable cause and same not being in accordance with Rule 13 of The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958,[For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “CCA Rules, 1958”.]. It has also been prayed that the Mines and Petroleum Department, Secretariat, Jaipur,[For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “respondent department”.] has wrongly mentioned the post of the petitioner to be Mining Engineer (Vigilance) instead of his original post i.e., Assistant Mining Engineer,[For brevity hereinafter to be referred as “AME”.] and therefore the same may also be taken note of.
2. Bereft of elaborated details, the brief facts of the instant writ petition are as under:-
2.1 The petitioner has been appointed on the post of AME on 30.12.2014 (Annexure 1) and while working on the post of AME in the office of Mining Engineer, Bundi II was transferred to AME (Vigilance), Jaisalmer on 22.02.2024 (Annexure 2).
2.2 During the petitioner’s tenure at Bundi, an additional charge of Mining Engineer, Bijolia was assigned to him on 28.02.2024 (Annexure 3). He despite being transferred was not relieved by the Mining Engineer, Bundi. Eventually, he was relinquished from the charge on 04.03.2024 (Annexure 4).
2.3 After joining at Jaisalmer, the petitioner was served a show-cause notice by the Additional Director (Admn.) to which the petitioner responded within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 on 16.08.2024 (Annexure 5) and on the same day he was suspended vide order dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure 6).
2.4 The order incorrectly mentioned the petitioner as a Mining Engineer (Vigilance) while he was holding the post of AME. The suspension order did not specify any ongoing disciplinary or criminal proceedings. Further the petitioner’s headquarters was changed from Jaisalmer to Udaipur and therefore, aggrieved by the above, he preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging the above action of the respondent.
2.5 On 23.08.2024, the Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the suspension order dated 16.08.2024 issued by the respondent department and this order has invalidated the suspension. Following the court’s order, the suspension order dated 16.08.2024 was set aside and consequently the petitioner resumed his services and assumed the position of Assistant Mining Engineer (Vigilance) at Jaisalmer on 28.08.2024. The copy of the order dated 23.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 respectively are annexed with the writ petition (Annexure 7 and Annexure 8 respectively).
2.6 The department sought an advice from Additional Advocate General (AAG) on 28.08.2024 (Annexure 9) to which he advised that the suspension order is invalid as it is not in accordance with Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958. On 29.08.2024, a new suspension order was issued by the respondent department where the post of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned by the respondent department and he was suspended according to the Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958 (Annexure 10). On 30.08.2024, a clarification order was issued correcting the designation error in the previous suspension order (Annexure 11).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actions of respondents in suspending the petitioner from the post of AME without providing any reason is illegal and arbitrary. The order issued on 29.08.2024 stated that disciplinary proceedings under the CCA Rules, 1958 were being considered against him ¼dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk fopkjk/khu gSA½. As a result of which the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect under Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958.
3.1 On the very next day i.e., 30.08.2024, a clarifying order was issued regarding the pre
The court ruled that suspension orders must adhere to legal standards and cannot be arbitrary, emphasizing the need for proper justification and adherence to procedural rules.
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
Charge-sheets should not be quashed at the initial stage and suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or routine manner. The competent authority should examine the charge-sheets and take a deci....
The employer's power to suspend an employee during disciplinary proceedings must be justified by material evidence, especially after significant delays.
Point of Law : Service Law – Charge sheet - At the charge sheet stage, the Court will not go into the correctness of the charges. It is for the Inquiry Officer who has been appointed by the Disciplin....
Suspension orders under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so invalidates the suspension.
The court upheld the suspension of a teacher for misconduct, emphasizing the need for discipline in educational institutions.
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....
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
