Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–The unsuccessful petitioner to the Writ Petition is the appellant in this appeal. The Writ Petition was filed to quash the order of suspension, Annex. 10, and also to issue the direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the inquiry in view of the reply submitted by the appellant- petitioner, Annex. 3, 6 and 9.

(2). The respondent No. 2 issued three notices and statement of allegations under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, on 10th March 2000. The first notice is (Annex.1). The statement of allegations is Annex. 2. The appellant submitted reply to Annex. 1 and 2 in under Annex. 3. The second notice is Annex. 4 and the statement of allegations is annex. 5; the reply was submitted under Annex. 6. The third notice is Annex. 7 and the statement of allegations is in Annex. 8. Reply by the appellant is in Annex. 9. The above three notices were issued for taking action under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. According to the appellant, the disciplinary authority has to take a decision in the matter, but however, the respondent No. 2 has not taken any action. Hence, the prayer to issue direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the inquiry and pass orders.

(3). The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is Annex. 10, which is the suspension order. It is stated in Annex. 10 that the appellant is placed under suspension as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. The order of suspension was issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the said Rules against the appellant herein, who is a Government servant and against whom a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated. According to the appellant, the departmental enquiry under Rule 17 is pending against him; the Dy. Conservator of Forest is not competent to issue Annex. 10 which is totally arbitrary. According to the learned counsel, Shri Mahesh Kishore Sharma, the suspension order is issued only when a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules for award of major penalty is made and that the suspension is not made in case of departmental enquiry under Rule 17 and since the enquiry had already been ordered under Rule 17, there was no occasion for the respondents to place the appellant under suspension. It is further submitted that the suspension order has been issued at the instance of the Minister for Forest.

(4). The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:

``A Departmental enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules is pending and during pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has been suspended by the competent authority. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of suspension passed by the Government. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

(5). It is see from the above order that the learned Single Judge held that the departmental enquiry under Rule 17 was pending decision of the Government and therefore, the Government has correctly passed the order of suspension. This observation as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is factually incorrect as the suspension order Annex. 10 was not passed in connection with and under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. It is stated in Annex. 10 that an enquiry was contemplated. However, as the Appellate Court, this Court can correct the inadvertent error committed by the learned single Judge and clarify the said order in this appeal as the appeal is a continuation of the writ proceedings. In so far as the three notices issued earlier under Rule 17 are concerned, we are of the opinion that the same cannot be subject matter of the order of suspension under Annex. 10. The suspension order was not passed in connection with the enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules. As already noticed, the suspension order clearly states that the appellant is placed under suspension and a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated. The suspension can be ordered only under certain circumstances enumerated in the rules or instructions. A c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document