Honble VYAS, J.–The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the impugned order dtd. 3.9.2005 (Annex.P/13) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

(2). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar, Tehsil Gudamalani in the year 1999. Vide order dated 13.5.2003 the petitioner was placed under suspension. After preliminary enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found proved and accordingly vide order dated 14.11.2003 the suspension of the petitioner was revoked.

(3). It has also been averred by the petitioner that after a lapse of three years, a charge-sheet dated 19.1.2005 has been issued and in contemplation of enquiry the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 3.9.2005 on account of pendency of departmental enquiry.

(4). In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order of suspension.

(5). In this writ petition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after service of charge-sheet neither any enquiry officer was appointed nor any notice of departmental enquiry was served upon the petitioner. Therefore, suspension of the petitioner on account of pendency of departmental enquiry is absolutely unjustified.

(6). It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been placed under suspension at the behest of respondent No. 4, who has threatened the petitioner to ruin his service career. The petitioner has earlier been placed under suspension which was later on revoked. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that after lapse of 2 years from exoneration in the preliminary enquiry, a charge-sheet has been served in the year 2005, which clearly shows that same has been issued with mala-fide intention.

(7). Before proceeding further, the legal position respect of suspension has to be seen.

(8). The power of suspension has been provided under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958, which reads as under:

``13. Suspension:–(1) The Appointing Authority or any other authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension.

(a) where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending or

(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial;

Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority, the circumstances in which the order was made.

(9). The general principle for suspension is that an employer can suspend an employee pending and enquiry into his conduct and on this general principle, the Government like any other employer, would have a right to suspend a public servant in one or two ways. It may suspend any public servant pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal proceedings. This is called interim suspension.

(10). It is settled law that normally when an appointing authority of the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct of defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority or on application of mind by the disciplinary authority.

(11). It may also be stated that an order of suspension during the pendency of a departmental enquiry is ordinarily not interfered by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution until and unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the order has been malafide passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document