The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in the matter of suspension, emphasizing the need for a strong prima-facie case against the delinquent for passing a suspension order.

ORDER :

1. This order will govern the disposal of WA No. 593/2020 and WA No. 580/2020 as both these Writ Appeals have been filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 3.6.2020 passed in WP No. 7476/2020.

2. The respondent No. 4 (in WA No. 593/2020) namely Jagdish Rathi was working as Assistant Commissioner, Excise, District Ratlam. He was placed under suspension by order dated 6.5.2020 and aggrieved with the same he had filed WP No. 7476/2020. Meanwhile the appellant in WA No. 593/2020 by order dated 13.5.2020 was transferred to the post which had become vacant on account of the suspension of the writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 26.5.2020 had stayed the operation of the order of suspension. The State government had filed the reply dated 30th May, 2020. The appellant in WA No. 593/2020 had filed the intervention application along with the application for vacating of stay. Learned Single Judge by order under challenge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the suspension order passed against the Respondent No. 4 holding it to be a stigmatic order and also observing that the order does not mention that any departmental enquiry is contemplated against him and also making certain observations on the merits of the charge in favour of the Respondent No. 4.

3. Learned counsel for appellant in WA No. 590/2020 has submitted that the appellant has been transferred on the post which fell vacant due to the suspension of the Respondent No. 4, therefore, the learned Single Judge is not justified in directing transfer of the appellant to some other place. He further submits that the appellant was not even impleaded in the writ petition, therefore, intervention application was required to be filed. He submits that the appellant is presently working on the post in question.

4. Learned counsel for appellants in WA No. 580/2020 which is an appeal preferred by the State has vehemently contended that learned Single Judge is not justified in making observation on the merits of the alleged misconduct in favour of the Respondent No. 4. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the chargesheet which was already on record while observing that no departmental enquiry was contemplated. He also submits that there is limited scope of judicial review in such matter and Respondent No. 4 cannot be allowed to continue in the present place of posting as there is every possibility of him tampering with the evidence. He has also submitted that the State’s power to transfer cannot be curtailed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 (writ petitioner) has contended that the Respondent No. 4 was wrongly placed under suspension, therefore, learned Single Judge has not committed any error in quashing the order of suspension and that the respondent No. 4 could not have been placed under suspension for such a charge. He has further submitted that by virtue of the interim order he is continuing in the present place therefore he has right to continue in the present place of posting.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

7. Before entering the merits of the controversy, we think it appropriate to take note of the scope of judicial review in the matter of suspension. The Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others vs. Sanjiv Rajan (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 483 has held that the order of suspension should not ordinarily be interfered with unless it has been passed mala-fide and without there being even a prima-facie evidence connecting the delinquent with the misconduct in question. The Supreme Court has also held that in such matters it is advisable that the concerned employee is kept out of the mischief’s range. The Supreme Court in this regard has expressed that:-

“10. We find from the charge-sheet that the allegations against the 1st respondent are grave in as much as they indicate that the amounts mentioned there in are not deposited in the