Rajasthan High Court Quashes Assistant Mining Engineer's Suspension, Citing Arbitrary Action And Lack of Justification

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the suspension order of an Assistant Mining Engineer, finding the action taken by the Mines and Petroleum Department to be arbitrary, lacking proper justification under the relevant rules, and appearing punitive rather than preventive.

The judgment, rendered by Justice Farjand Ali , highlighted that the suspension was based on alleged misconduct of a "trivial nature" occurring at the petitioner's previous place of posting, located approximately 700 kilometers away from his current station. The court found that the suspension order did not meet the mandatory requirements of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, as no disciplinary proceedings were shown to be pending or contemplated at the time the order was issued, nor was a criminal case under investigation or trial.

Case Background

The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Mining Engineer (AME), was transferred from Bundi to Jaisalmer in February 2024. While still posted at Bundi, he was given an additional charge at Bijolia . Allegations concerning variations in the weight of loaded mineral gravel during his tenure at Bijolia formed the basis of subsequent departmental action.

Following his joining at Jaisalmer , the petitioner received a show-cause notice and subsequently a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 on August 16, 2024. On the same day, he was suspended, but that order was quashed by the High Court on August 23, 2024, citing its invalidity. The petitioner resumed duty on August 28, 2024.

Days later, on August 29, 2024, a new suspension order was issued, citing contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 13(1)(a). This order initially incorrectly mentioned his post as Mining Engineer (Vigilance) instead of AME, an error later clarified by an order on August 30, 2024. Aggrieved by this second suspension, the petitioner again approached the High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the suspension order dated August 29, 2024, was illegal and arbitrary as it failed to provide specific reasons for suspension. It was argued that while the order vaguely mentioned contemplated disciplinary action, it did not explicitly state that proceedings were initiated or pending at that moment.

Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel emphasized that the alleged misconduct occurred at Bundi/ Bijolia , a significant distance from his current posting in Jaisalmer . They argued that the petitioner, being transferred to a different administrative jurisdiction, could not influence any investigation related to his past conduct, rendering the suspension unwarranted and punitive rather than preventive. The incorrect designation in the initial order was also highlighted as evidence of a lack of due application of mind by the department.

Respondent's Counter-Arguments

The department's counsel opposed the petition, arguing that a writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal against the suspension order under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, 1958. It was also argued that suspension is not a punishment and challenging it through a writ petition was premature, suggesting the petitioner should have participated in the departmental proceedings.

The respondents claimed that an inquiry was indeed contemplated, citing a charge-sheet issued on September 5, 2024 (after the suspension order). They maintained the department's competence to suspend under Rule 13 based on complaints received, and referenced previous judgments in support of their submissions (though the court's order does not detail how these judgments supported the respondents' specific arguments).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Justice Farjand Ali , after hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, found merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court observed that the alleged misconduct was of a "trivial nature" and related to the petitioner's previous posting. Crucially, the court noted that the suspension order dated August 29, 2024, failed to satisfy the conditions of Rule 13(1)(a).

The court stated:

"In this case, no proceeding was under contemplation or pending against the petitioner when he was ordered to be suspended and so also no criminal offence was under investigation or trial and therefore the action of the respondent department is not fulfilling the requirements needed under Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958."

Highlighting the preventive nature of suspension, the court noted that suspending the petitioner while he was posted nearly 700 kilometers away from the alleged misconduct location, where the inquiry was contemplated, did not serve this purpose. The court concluded that the suspension, in this context, appeared "punitive instead of a preventive one."

The court also severely criticized the manner in which the department issued the suspension orders, pointing out the initial incorrect designation in the first suspension order, its subsequent quashing by the court, the issuance of a second order with the same incorrect designation, and a subsequent clarification order. This sequence of events, the court found, indicated a "casual manner or in an unscrupulous way" and a lack of procedural propriety, suggesting the order was passed out of "obstinacy."

The court also referred to similar cases, including the Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jodharam Bishnoi , where suspensions were quashed due to delays in issuing the order relative to the charge-sheet and the transfer of the employee away from the place of alleged delinquency.

Decision and Implications

Based on these findings, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the suspension order dated August 29, 2024.

The court clarified that its order does not prevent the department from initiating, commencing, or concluding the contemplated inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the law.

This judgment underscores the principle that suspension of a government employee must be based on concrete grounds stipulated in the service rules, be preventive in nature, and issued with due diligence and application of mind. Arbitrary or punitive suspensions, particularly for minor allegations at distant locations, remain susceptible to judicial challenge.