Honble PALSHIKAR, J.– By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th June, 97 passed by the Chairman of the Board suspending the petitioner from service as Junior Engineer in view of contemplated disciplinary proceedings. It is alleged that the order of suspension is unwarranted arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable in law. Several grounds have been given in support of thechallenge as made in this petition.

(2) An extensive reply is filed by the Board defending the action of suspension and claiming that the order of suspension is not arbitrary or unwarranted or unjustified. Taking a very strong objection for interference with such order of suspension, Shri L.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the respondent, Board pointedout to me several decisions of the Supreme Court of India and submitted that this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the present case of suspension. He placed heavy reliance on a judgment reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. Page 2296 (1) and submitted that the Supreme Court of India having noticed the various cases decided by the Supreme Court has now rendered this judgment whichsettles the positions in law and it is now declared to be the law of the land by the Supreme Court of India that normally they should not be interfered in the matter of suspension orders. He, therefore, claimed that the petition should be dismissed.

(3). Refuting this objection of maintainability of the petition or exercise of jurisdiction by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon anotherjudgment of the Supreme Court reported in R.C. Sood vs. High Court of Rajasthan (2). According to the learned counsel, the Supreme Court has in this decision laid down that if even a prima facie case of misconduct is not made order of suspension becomes arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. According to the learned counsel in the present case also, the circumstances as alleged by the petitioner and not dis-puted by the respondents do not make out any case warranting suspension of the petitioner. There cannot be any dispute regarding the general proposition of law that normally the power of suspension of an employee in contemplation of a departmental proceeding is the purgative of the employer, exercise of which should not normally be interfered with as has been contended by Shri L.M. Lodha. In the decision reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2296 (Supra), the Supreme Court has succinctly pointed out the circumstances in which and the manner in which an or-der of suspension could not be passed and should be passed. It will be worthwhile to note the observations of the Supreme Court in this regard in extenso;

``Normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one way of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document