The court established that a suspension must be justified by serious grounds, and not merely as a retaliatory measure without concrete evidence.

ORDER :

1. Heard on the interim stay application.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the suspension order dated 17.10.2025.

3. The case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was serving as Chief Medical & Health Officer at Udaipur, the respondents, on the basis of frivolous complaints, passed a transfer order dated 07.01.2025. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order before the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 697/2025. The writ petition was dismissed on 13.01.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a Special Appeal against the said order before the Division Bench of this Court. By order dated 09.04.2025, the Division Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and consequently set aside the transfer order dated 07.01.2025. When full compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench was not made, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition. In the Contempt Petition, the Division Bench, vide order dated 02.07.2025, issued a show-cause notice to the contemnors for non-compliance with the order dated 09.04.2025.

4. Subsequent to the transfer order, the respondents resorted to various frivolous grounds to initiate action against the petitioner with an ulterior motive, in retaliation for challenging the transfer order and for filing the Contempt Petition for its non-compliance. The present impugned suspension order is a result of such ulterior motive and is not based on any material of a serious nature, which requires disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Without any concrete material warranting the suspension, the impugned order of suspension has been passed, which requires to be set aside.

5. The case of the respondents is that there are multiple charge-sheets against the petitioner, and proposals for initiation of disciplinary proceedings were also submitted by various authorities to the Appointing Authority. These proposals were based on several grounds, including allegations of financial mismanagement and irregularities in tender processing. On the basis of these investigations, the impugned order of suspension was issued in contemplation of departmental enquiries. The suspension order is not punitive in nature; it is merely an interim measure pending such enquiries, which order cannot be interfered.

6. The respondents also claimed that the writ petition is not maintainable in the light of alternative remedy available before the Administrative Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the interim stay application.

7. The rejoinder of the petitioner also shows that there are certain charge-sheets against the petitioner for minor deviations, such as non-compliance with certain audit objections, and one charge-sheet relating to an altercation that occurred when the petitioner, during an inspection of an institution under his control, had a dispute with the person in charge of that institution. These constitute the only two cases in which charge-sheets have been issued to the petitioner. In all other matters, no charge-sheet has been issued; instead, proposals for disciplinary action were made by lower authorities who were acting at the behest of individuals holding animosity against the petitioner. Furthermore, the allegations in question were referred to the Anti-Corruption Bureau for enquiry, which itself indicates that no concrete material was available before the Authorities to frame charges against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry. These allegations are direct consequence