Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Karni Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 March, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18012/2019
Karni Singh S/o Shri Gurdev Singh, aged about 54 Years, B/c
Majahabi Sikh, R/o Purani Abadi, Ward No. 4, Near School No. 7,
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary (III),
Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajdeep Singh
Mr. Manish Tak.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
16/03/2022
The matter comes up on an application under Article 226(3)
of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order dated
03.12.2019.
With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition
itself is being heard finally and decided by this order.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order of
suspension dated 22.11.2019, whereby, the petitioner had been
(2 of 4) [CW-18012/2019]
suspended on the ground of he being involved in some financial
irregularity. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said
order of suspension has been passed totally in contravention to
Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1958").
Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under:
"13. Suspension : (1) The Appointing Authority
or any authority to which it is subordinate or
any other authority empowered by the
Government in that behalf may place a
Government servant under suspension.
(a) Where a disciplinary proceedings
against him is contemplated or is pending, or
(b) Where a case against him in respect of
any criminal office is under investigation or trial;
Provided that where the order of
suspension is made by an authority lower than
the Appointing Authority, such authority shall
forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the
circumstances in which the order was passed."
Rule 13 specifically provides for two instances when an
employee can be placed under suspension:
Firstly, where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated
against him and
Secondly, if any investigation or trial in some criminal
proceeding is pending against him.
A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 22.11.2019
shows that it does not speak of any disciplinary proceedings
sought to be initiated against the petitioner. It is not the case of
the respondents that any criminal proceedings/investigation/trial
is pending against the petitioner. In S.B.C.W.P. No.4125/2020
(Ram Chandra Tripathy Vs. State & Ors.) decided on
12.05.2020 and S.B.C.W.P. No.6105/2006 (Hajari Vishnu Vs.
State & Ors.) decided on 28.05.2008, it has been held that any
(3 of 4) [CW-18012/2019]
order of suspension passed in contravention to Rule 13 of the
Rules of 1958 cannot be sustained and therefore, has to be
quashed.
Second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is
that the allegations of financial irregularity as raised by the
respondent - Department were against three persons specifically,
whereas, only the petitioner has been placed under suspension
and no action against the other two persons has been taken by
the Department.
Counsel has relied upon the Apex Court judgment passed in
Civil Appeal No.2200/1999 (K. Sukhendar Reddy Vs. State
of A.P. & Anr.) decided on 05.05.1999 and reported in (1999) 6
SCC 257. The Apex Court in the said judgment held that the
Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension.
It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the
charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner on 11.12.2019 and
the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance to the same have
already been undertaken by the Department. The issuance of the
charge sheet on a date post the order of suspension cannot make
the order valid as on the day when it was issued, it was
specifically in contravention to Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958.
Therefore, in view of the ratio as laid down in the above
mentioned judgments and in view of the fact that the impugned
order does not speak of any disciplinary proceedings being
contemplated against the petitioner, the same deserves to be
quashed and is hereby quashed. However, Department would be
at liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings initiated
against the petitioner.
(4 of 4) [CW-18012/2019]
With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed
of.
All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(REKHA BORANA),J
31-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
