Suspension is a procedural measure to facilitate inquiry, not a punishment, and administrative discretion is upheld in extraordinary circumstances.

1. Heard Mr. T. R. Mishra, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner, who by way of this petition, challenges the orders dated 12th March, 2024 and 16th March, 2024 passed by the Chief Engineer – GSECL, Wanakbori TPS, whereby the petitioner has been suspended and later on the petitioner has been transferred.

2. It is the case of Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner that a theft had taken place at the Wanakbori Thermal Power Station on 10th March, 2024 when the petitioner was on leave and whereas, yet, the petitioner has been suspended from services and whereas the petitioner had later been transferred to Khavda Solar Project (Bhuj).

Learned advocate would submit that except for stating in the order of suspension that involvement is revealed in the theft, there is no other material to show that the petitioner was in any way connected with the alleged offence.

4. Learned advocate would rely upon the Circular dated 29th August, 1989 by the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board to submit that transfer and suspension should not be considered simultaneously. Learned advocate would also rely upon decision of learned Co-ordinate Bench in Special Civil Application no.11463 of 2006 dated 4th August, 2006 whereby according to learned advocate, the Co-ordinate Bench has interfered in a similar issue.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition is absolutely meritless. The order dated 12th March, 2024 suspending the present petitioner from service, clearly states that after a preliminary inquiry the involvement of the present petitioner has been revealed in the material theft. It is by now a well settled proposition of law that suspension is not a punishment and whereas suspension is resorted to, to facilitate a departmental inquiry, more particularly to ensure that the suspended employee does not tamper with the evidence and/or does not attempt to influence the inquiry/witnesses. The order of suspension clearly stating the involvement of the present petitioner and whereas since the order of suspension not being punitive in nature, does not require to be interfered at this stage.

6. Insofar as the order of transfer is concerned, while it is mentioned that the petitioner is suspended on account of his involvement in theft of material, the respondents have deemed it appropriate to transfer the petitioner from the place in question i.e. Wanakbori to a distant place i.e. Khavda (Bhuj). In the considered opinion of this Court, once prima facie involvement of an employee that too a Security Officer is revealed in material theft, then the respondents are well within their rights to take appropriate action against the employee as they deem fit. Again, it requires to be mentioned here that no final decision as far as the petitioner appears to have taken more particularly since whether the petitioner was actually involved in the theft or not and the punishment which would be imposed upon the petitioner upon his involvement being finally established, are all these issues which would be decided upon by the appropriate authorities in departmental proceedings against the present petitioner.

7. Insofar as Circular dated 29th August, 1989, while at the outset it requires to be noted that nothing has been brought on record to show that said circular is adopted by the respondents even after the entire status of the respondents changing from the Electricity Board to a power distribution company, yet, in spite of the same, it is deemed appropriate to observe that circulars etc., being executive instructions, envisage a normal situation and whereas in an extraordinary situation like the present where a senior security officer is alleged to be involved in theft, the administrative discretion of the respondents would not be interfered with by this Court lightly.

In absence of the petitioner alleging malafides, it is nothing but administrative decisions of the respondents in suspending and later transferring the peti