Honble SHARMA, J.–The order that was passed on July 20, 2005 reads as under:-

``The writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Reasons shall follow.

Here are the reasons:-

(2). By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for direction to quash and set aside the suspension order dated May 16, 2005 with further direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Additional District Elementary Education Officer Jaipur.

(3). As per facts averred in the writ petition the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III in the Primary Education set up and he is continuously working under the Director Primary Education. He was promoted on the post of Teacher Gr.II in the year 1991. While the petitioner working as Head Master Government Upper Primary School, Hawamahal Jaipur he was promoted on the post of Lecturer in his own pay scale in Secondary Education set up. The same was denied by petitioner because the promotion was not regular and he was posted only in his own pay scale on the post of Lecturer. Thereafter the petitioner was posted as Additional Block Elementary Education Officer which is equivalent to the post of Lecturer under the Primary Education set up in Panchayat Samiti Dudu. The petitioner was transferred on his request to the post of Additional Block Elementary Education Officer Jaipur vide order dated February 22, 2003. The petitioner is an office bearer of Rajasthan Shikshak Congress which is a registered association and he was elected or nominated as a General Secretary (Headquarter), which Association is affiliated to the Congress party. Another association Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh is affiliated to the ruling party i.e., Bhartiya Janta Party and Dinesh Chand Sharma is the office bearer.

(4). The main contention of the petitioner is that impugned order of suspension has been passed with malafide intention at the behest of Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari, Minister of Education (respondent No. 5) because family members of the petitioner opposed Shri Tiwari in Assembly election held in the month of December 2003. After becoming Education Minister Shri Tiwari started passing orders against the petitioner. The petitioner was transferred and the transfer order was stayed by the Tribunal. Being annoyed by the aforesaid action the order of suspension was passed on wrong grounds and Headquarter of petitioner was fixed at Bikaner without any reason.

(5). Mr. Bajrang Lal Sharma, Learned Senior Counsel vehemently criticised the impugned order and placed reliance on Mani Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992(2) WLC (Raj.) 175, Dr. M.S. Bhatnagar vs. State of Raj. WLR 1991(S) Raj. 541, Lajpat Rai Gogna vs. State of Raj. 1992(1) RLR 619, Sumer Singh Bhandari vs. State of Raj. 1991(2) RLR 265.

(6). In Oxford Dictionary the term `suspension has been defined as `Action of debarring or state of being debarred, especially for a time from a function of privilege, temporary deprivation ones office or position, state of being temporarily kept from doing or deprived of something...

(7). Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in V.P. Gindroniya vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1970 SC 1494) indicated three kinds of suspension. Their Lordships observed in para 6 as under:-

``6. Three kinds of suspension are known to law. A public servant may be suspended as a mode of punishment or he may be suspended during the pendency of an enquiry against him if the order appointing him or statutory provisions governing his service provide for suspension. Lastly he may merely be forbidden from discharging his duties during the pendency of an enquiry against him which act is also called suspension. The right to suspend as a measure of punishment as well as the right to suspend the contract of service during the pendency of an enquiry are both regulated by the contract of employment or the provisions regulating the conditions of service. But the last category of suspension referred to earlier

Click Here to Read the rest of this document