Suspension of an employee must be justified, timely disciplinary proceedings initiated, and clear guidelines followed to prevent undue influence and ensure efficiency.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner (a Block Development Officer), is before this Court seeking quashing of an order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure-2) vide which he was suspended from service. Vide an interim order dated 12.05.2023 passed by this court operation and effect of the impugned suspension order was stayed in the following terms:-

“Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was placed under suspension along with two more persons, namely, Mr. Hari Mohan Meena & Mr. Laxman Meena. Out of those two persons, Hari Mohan Meena approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10080/2022 (Hari Mohan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.09.2022 passed the following order:-

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annex.5) placing the petitioner under suspension is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the order could only be passed by the Agriculture Department; and that the order has been passed without application of mind, inasmuch as the petitioner, though presently is posted at Deedwana, it has been indicated that the petitioner is posted at Mundwa.

Further submissions have been made that even as per the respondents’ own document (Annex.AA/1), the approval of suspension was sought from the Agriculture Department, which has been denied and the record has been sent back before onward transmission to the Personnel Department, which clearly reflects that the jurisdiction of placing the petitioner suspension, was only with the Agriculture Department.

Learned counsel appearing for Panchayati Raj Department attempted to make submissions with reference to the order dated 02.10.2010 (Annex.R/1) that as the entire Water Shed Programme has been transferred to Panchayati Raj Department alongwith Agriculture Engineers, the cadre controlling authority is Panchayati Raj Department only and the order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

In view of the fact that the respondents themselves have sought approval of the Agriculture Department vide Annex.AA/1, the matter requires consideration.

Issue notice. As Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG and Mr.Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG have already put in appearance for the respective respondents, no need to issue fresh notices.

Heard on stay petition.

During pendency of the present writ petition, effect and operation of the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annex.5) shall remain stayed.

The stay petition (10409/2022) stands disposed of.

Additional reply, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s case is situated on the same footing as the approval of the suspension order passed by the Panchayati Raj Department has not been received from the Department of Personnel & Training (D.O.P.T.) so far. He submits that getting the concurrence/ approval of the suspension order from the parent department is mandatory as per the Circular dated 12.04.2022 (Annex.5). He further submits that since the same has not been received so far, therefore, the suspension of the petitioner cannot be continued. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner is entitled for the similar interim relief as granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Mohan Meena vide order dated 06.09.2022. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he submits that charge-sheet has been issued in the case of petitioner.

On a pointed query being raised with respect to the receipt of approval from the Department of Personnel, the learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that till date, the approval of the suspension order passed by the Panchayati Raj Department has not been received.

Considering the submissions made at the Bar and the fact that in similar ci