Order

19/10/2020 The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged their suspension order dated 3.9.2020 on two accounts. Firstly that the suspension was not called for and warranted in view of sample test having been conducted at the level of the Joint Director and secondly, the order has also been challenged on the ground of having headquarters changed during suspension period.

Heard learned counsel for the State-respondents.

Learned counsel for the State has taken a preliminary objection that the order of suspension is an appealable order in terms of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) and therefore, the petitioners can take up their remedy and submit all their objections before the Appellate Authority and on merits also, the case has been argued stating that the preliminary inquiry was conducted wherein the petitioners have been found prima facie guilty of changing the samples.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations of changing samples are clearly not made out as the samples were sought from the office of the Joint Director and were in the possession of the Joint Director and the Inspectors had no role to play for the said purpose. Learned Senior Counsel has also challenged the suspension order of the petitioners on the ground that the Inspectors are posted at different places in Udaipur and Banswara and as the inquiry, if any, would be conducted jointly, there is no occasion to have changed their headquarters to Jaipur which is far away from their place of posting and during COVID-19 period, when they will be only getting subsistence allowance. I have considered the submissions.

Question regarding the merits of the case and whether the petitioners were required to be suspended on the basis of preliminary inquiry report is to be examined by the Appellate Authority and I therefore refrain from making any comments on the said aspect and leave it open for the Appellate Authority to examine it at its own level and pass a speaking order after considering the submissions raised by the respective petitioners. However, so far as change of headquarters of the petitioners during suspension period is concerned, I am of the view that the same was not warranted. More so, as even the charge-sheet has not been issued nor it is stated in the order that the petitioners are likely to in any manner going to influence the inquiry contemplated.

Keeping in view thereof, the changing of headquarters in the suspension orders is set aside and the petitioners shall be allowed to mark their attendance at their respective place of posting which was existing prior to passing of their suspension order.

If the petitioners prefer an appeal under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958, the same shall be examined on merits without being influenced by the present order and a speaking order shall be passed within a period of 1 month from today. The order shall be duly communicated to the petitioners and if they still have any grievance, they shall be free to take their grievances before Appellate Forum.

With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are partly allowed.

A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Karan Bhutani /531/58-61