The court upheld the validity of a suspension order during an inquiry, emphasizing that it is not a punishment but a necessary procedural measure, thereby supporting the use of alternative remedies in such cases.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Basically, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 29.08.2025 on various grounds. Since the respondents have filed reply, therefore, with consent of counsel for the parties, we are disposing of the writ petition at this stage.

2. The writ petitions has prayed as under:

1. Request to pass an order or direction to quash and set aside the suspension order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 by using powers under Rule 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and the said suspension order passed arbitrarily and without application of mind after two years of sending the preliminary enquiry report of the alleged incident as alleged by the Respondent No. 3 on the basis of fake, forged and fabricated used by the documents prepared and Respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 to harm/destroy the government service of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 violates principle of natural justice.

2. Request to pass an order or direction to the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to reinstate/restore the Petitioner on the same place of posting as an Incharge at First Class Veterinary Hospital, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. Request to pass an order or direction to stay the suspension order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 and 2 kindly be restrained from taking any other coercive action against the Petitioner till the disposal of the present petition. 4. Request to pass an order or direction to Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to conduct the joint enquiry as per Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 against the Respondent No. 3, Respondent No.

4 and Respondent No. 5 for misconduct and conspiracy to for harm/destroy the government service of the Petitioner by preparing and using fake, forged and fabricated documents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds of the writ petition, submitted that Respondent No. 3 is having malice with petitioner and due to this animosity, Respondent No. 3 has proposed departmental action against the petitioner. He further submitted that Respondent No. 4 has also played main role in filing a false complaint against the petitioner at the instigation of Respondent No. 3. He also submitted that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are responsible for creation of false and fabricated documents and filing baseless complaints against the petitioner. He also referred to certain documents placed on record and submitted that there is direct tussle between Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 has created false and fabricated evidence to nail present petitioner. He also submitted that a person cannot be a judge in his own case, but Respondent No. 3 has submitted a fact-finding report against the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was neither served with notice nor an opportunity was given to show cause. He also submitted that the petitioner is entitled for protection as there is violation of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. He further submitted that false and fabricated documents were prepared with the connivance and help of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 so that false charges can be levelled against petitioner. He submitted that after suspension, a charge- sheet was issued only after two months and not soon after the suspension. He submitted that a suspension order cannot survive unless same is supported with documents. He also referred to several docume