Suspension orders based on past conduct are unsustainable if the employee has been transferred and posed no risk to an inquiry. Factual errors in suspension invalidate the order.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. These three writ petitions involve identical issue, therefore, the same are being adjudicated and decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners herein have been placed under suspension vide orders dated 27.05.2025 (Mr. Vivek Singh) and 04.06.2025 (Mr. Rajneeesh Vidyarthi and Mr. Dayashankar Gupta) on the premise that departmental proceedings are contemplated against them for the alleged irreguarlites in vehicle registration committed by them while being posted at the District Transport Office, Sawai Madhopur. They have preferred the instant writ petitions challenging the validity and propriety of the aforementioned suspension orders.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the validity, legality and propriety of the impugned suspension orders, submit that the very foundation on which the suspension has been ordered stands vitiated. It is contended that all the petitioners have been placed under suspension on the allegation of certain misconduct said to have been committed by them during their past postings at the District Transport Office, Sawai Madhopur. However, prior to the issuance of the impugned suspension orders, each of the petitioners had already been transferred to different District Transport Offices, falling within entirely distinct geographical and administrative jurisdictions. It is submitted that once the petitioners were relieved from their earlier place of posting and had assumed charge at their new postings, there remained no rational basis for the respondents to resort to the extreme step of suspension on the premise of past conduct. The respondents have failed to consider that the petitioners, being posted in different districts altogether, have no occasion, authority, or proximity to influence, interfere with, or obstruct any investigation or departmental enquiry that may be contemplated with respect to their earlier place of posting. Thus, the purported object of suspension, namely, to ensure an uninfluenced enquiry, stands wholly defeated, rendering the order arbitrary, disproportionate and unsustainable in law.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the case of petitioner Mr. Vivek Singh is on an even more precarious footing. The impugned suspension order in his case proceeds on an apparent factual error, inasmuch as it records his place of posting to be Sawai Madhopur, whereas undisputedly, on the date of issuance of the suspension order, he was serving at Jaipur pursuant to a valid transfer and joining. This fundamental factual mistake strikes at the root of the satisfaction purportedly arrived at by the competent authority and exposes complete non-application of mind. It is argued that an order of suspension founded upon incorrect and non-existent facts cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed on this ground alone.

5. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgments passed in Naresh Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1788/2024) decided on 21.02.2025 and Prakash Mali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14688/2024) decided on 22.10.2024.

6. With these submissions learned counsel for the petitioners pray for acceptance of the writ petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. They submitted that the instant writ petitions not maintainable and su