Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
Naresh Singh S/o Shri Santosh Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1788/2024
Decided On : 21-02-2025
(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 13 - Suspension of Government servants - Suspension is a preventive measure, not punitive; must be exercised cautiously to avoid stigma - Petitioners challenged prolonged suspension without inquiry or charge sheet - Court emphasized the need for timely initiation and completion of disciplinary proceedings to prevent undue hardship. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 12, 44)
(B) Administrative Principles for Suspension - Suspension requires credible evidence and objective consideration; delays in proceedings may turn suspension punitive - Guidelines established to ensure timely actions and accountability. (Paras 36, 38)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners include various government servants suspended for extended periods due to alleged misconduct, with no timely disciplinary inquiries initiated. (Para 3.1)
Findings of Court:
Court quashed the suspension orders for four petitioners, directing reinstatement within 30 days, while allowing for continued disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 44, 45)
Issues: The main issues were the legality of prolonged suspensions without timely inquiries and the interpretation of 'contemplated' versus 'pending' disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 4, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that suspension must be justified by credible evidence and timely initiation of proceedings, emphasizing that prolonged suspension without inquiry can be seen as punitive. (Paras 36, 44)
Result: Suspension orders quashed and petitioners directed to be reinstated.
Judgment :
1. Suspension of a Government servant, as per service jurisprudence, ordinarily, is and should be resorted to as a preventive measure, not punitive. Likewise, during or pre-trial detention of a suspect in criminal jurisprudence is preventive and not punitive. But, the pressing question is, how to obviate preventiveness as a euphemism for punishment ? The harsh reality is that, irrespective of legal intent, both suspension and detention are often perceived with disdain by society, inflicting severe damage to one’s public image and leading to profound demoralization. We are concerned here with the former.
1.1. While suspension, no doubt, is a crucial tool for maintaining discipline and transparency in Government services, it should be exercised with caution, since, in practical terms, suspension is contemptuously perceived. It shatters public image of a Government servant and causes stigma with seriously daunting effects. Even if the individual is later cleared of wrongdoing, the negative perception may not fully disappear.
2. Let us delve into the power to suspend when invoked either in contemplation of or due to pending disciplinary proceedings, more elaborately in the succeeding part.
3. The Government servants in the State of Rajasthan have been categorized as below:-
(a). The State Services,
(b). The Subordinate Services,
(c). The Ministerial Services, and the
(d). The Class IV Services.
3.1 Petitioners in the above bunch of five petitions are from different classes of their respective services. They are before this Court, inter alia, alleging inaction/delay at the hands of the respondents, in proceeding further after they were suspended. While on the other hand they continue to be suspended from their respective posts. Succinctly their cases are summed up in the following table :
| Suspension Order (Date) | Case Name | Petitioner | Post | Reason for Suspension | Legal Grounds for Challenge | Duration of Suspension (as of 21.02.2025) | Current Status |
| 10.07.2018 | Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.4733/2025) | Jugal Kishore | Senior Clerk, Municipality Bhadra | Repeated intoxication at work, physical altercations, and abusive behaviour | Prolonged suspension without inquiry or charge sheet | 6 years, 7 months, 11 days | No Charge sheet issued till date and no inquiry initiated. |
| 21.01.2021 | Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.14416/2022) | Ashok Kumar | Sanitation Worker | Alleged encroachment on govt/municipal land | Claims land occupation predates employment, making charges invalid | 4 years, 1 month | Charge sheet dated 21.01.2021 issued, but inquiry is still pending |
| 09.06.2023 | Brajesh Chandra Mishra vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.14930/2024) | Brajesh Chandra Mishra | Junior Assistant | Alleged misconduct of putting unacceptable WhatsApp status, thus committing Violation of Rule 7 of Rajasthan Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1971 | Suspension under Rule 13(a) of CCA Rules, 1958 challenged | 1 year, 8 months, 12 days | Charge sheet dated 18.08.2023 issued, but no final outcome yet. |
| 14.12.2023 | Naresh Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.1788/2024) | Naresh Singh | Executive Engineer, PHED | Alleged financial irregularities in work approvals | Suspension arbitrary; no charge sheet issued at the time of suspension | 1 year, 2 months, 7 days | No charge sheet issued till date. Challenges both suspension order and Tribunal order dated 29.01.2024. |
| 17.07.2024 | Dinesh Kumar Suthar vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.4267/2025) | Dinesh Kumar Suthar | Lecturer (Commerce) | Alleged involvement in mass cheating as a vigilance supervisor | Petitioner claims he was on official duty elsewhere and was falsely implicated | 7 months, 4 days | Charge sheet dated 08.08.2024 issued but inquiry is still pending. |
4. Controversy herein revolves around scope and ambit of the core legal question concerning the suspension of an employee under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958[Enacted and came in force on 11.12.1958, published vide official Gazette on 07.05.1959.] (CCA Rules- for short). Rule 13 thereof, bein
Suspension of government servants must be justified by credible evidence and timely disciplinary proceedings, or it risks being deemed punitive.
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....
Suspension of an employee must be justified, timely disciplinary proceedings initiated, and clear guidelines followed to prevent undue influence and ensure efficiency.
Prolonged suspension of government servants without timely review constitutes collateral punishment, violating principles of fairness and the presumption of innocence.
Suspension of a government servant must be based on serious allegations and objective consideration, with documented reasoning to prevent arbitrariness.
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 : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointing authority must exercise independent discretion when issuing a suspension order, as required by Regulation 4(1) of the Regulatio....
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
