Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shyam Sunder Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:16912) on 2 April, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:16912]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6962/2025
Shyam Sunder Meena S/o Bajrang Singh Meena, Aged About 42
Years, R/o 29, Parsvnath Colony, Beawar (Raj.) Presently Posted
As Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Shekhawas, Panchayat
Samiti Bhim, District Rajsamand (Raj.).
                                                       ----Petitioner
                                Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
       Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
       Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.     District Collector, Beawar.
3.     Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand.
4.     Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bhim, District
       Rajsamand.
                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Mukesh Vyas.
For Respondent(s)         :


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

02/04/2025

1. Grievance of the petitioner, a Gram Vikas Adhikari, arises out

of an order dated 21.03.2025 (Annex.1), vide which his service

has been put under the suspension.

2. At the very outset, on a Court query, learned counsel for the

petitioner informs that before passing the impugned suspension

order neither any preliminary inquiry has been initiated against

the petitioner nor has he been served any charge-sheet nor issued

any notice or afforded an opportunity of hearing.

2.1 He contends that the impugned suspension order has been

passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. District Collector, who had no

jurisdiction to pass such order as the same is vested with District

Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad concerned.

3. In this context, reference may be had to a judgment

rendered by this Court in the case titled Naresh Singh Vs. State

[2025:RJ-JD:16912] (2 of 4) [CW-6962/2025]

of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 1788/2024, relevant

portion of which is hereinbelow:-

"36. Before parting, it is deemed appropriate that following guidelines are framed to be followed by Competent Authorities / Head of Departments of State in those cases where suspension orders are warranted either in contemplation or pending departmental proceedings:-

GUIDELINES

(a). Purpose of Suspension: Suspension is not meant as punishment but serves to protect evidence, prevent witness influence, and ensure smooth disciplinary proceedings. It should only be used when absolutely necessary.

(b). Discretionary Yet Severe: While suspension is neither described nor prescribed as a punitive measure, it has serious repercussions, affecting an employee's morale, reputation, and financial stability. It also imposes a financial burden on the government.

(c). Prudent Exercise of Authority: Authorities must act with utmost caution, considering all relevant facts before suspending an employee. The decision should be justified by the need to protect evidence and witnesses.

(d). Timely Disciplinary Action: If an employee is suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, those proceedings must begin immediately after suspension and be concluded promptly.

(e). Defined Timelines: Specific deadlines should be set for each stage of disciplinary proceedings, including as below:

i. Initiation - Issuance of charge sheet or show cause notice.

ii. Response - Submission of the employee's reply. iii. Decision - Review of the reply and determination of further action.

iv. Inquiry - If necessary, initiation and conclusion of a departmental inquiry.

v. Resolution - Submission and review of the inquiry report, followed by a final decision by Disciplinary Authority.

(f). Monitoring & Compliance: A mechanism should be established to ensure adherence to these timelines, with periodic reviews and remedial actions, including penalties for defaulters or revocation of unnecessary suspensions.

37. I may also like to make it clear that the aforesaid guidelines are only in those cases where disciplinary proceedings are either pending or contemplated and exclude all those cases of suspension which are owing to either arrest in a criminal proceedings or pending any criminal investigation and / or criminal trial before a competent Court.

38. Apart from the guidelines, supra, it is deemed appropriate that this Court exercises its writ jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to State of Rajasthan through Secretary Personnel to ensure that all the competent authorities who have been vested with the power to suspend a Government servant to adhere to a reasonable time limit to take further action after suspension order is passed. It is, therefore, directed that where there are no criminal proceedings pending, but a Government servant is suspended in

[2025:RJ-JD:16912] (3 of 4) [CW-6962/2025]

contemplation of departmental proceedings, forthwith steps shall be taken for initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge sheet or show-cause notice as the case may be, but the same shall not be later than 30 days with effect from the date of suspension order. In case charge sheet cannot be issued, then one extension of another 30 days shall be permissible provided reasons in writing be recorded and conveyed to the suspended Government servant.

39. The consequence of non-adherence to the 30 days' time-limit or 60 days, as the case may be, shall necessarily lead to an indefeasible right to seek revocation of the suspension order at the instance of the suspended Government servant upon his approaching the suspending authority or by way of filing an appeal under Rule 22.

40. Just as the mandate of timeline to issue charge sheet is to be followed by the suspending / disciplinary authority, likewise upon a Government servant approaching the appellant authority under Rule 22, it shall be incumbent on the appellant authority to dispose of the appeal either way within a period of 30 days of its being received in the office of appellant authority. In case the appeal cannot be disposed of within a period of 30 days, reasons in writing be recorded and conveyed to the suspended Government servant.

41. It is directed that the Government of Rajasthan, i.e. through The Secretary Personnel, shall take appropriate steps to sensitize the concerned authorities of State Government in this behalf and also convey the aforesaid mandamus as well as Guidelines to them for compliance. Registry of this Court is directed to e-mail a copy of the instant order/judgment to the Chief Secretary as well as The Secretary Personnel of the State.

CONCLUSION

42. To sum up, though at the cost of repetition, suspension during disciplinary proceedings is intended not as punishment but as a necessary measure to preserve critical evidence and prevent any undue influence over witnesses, thereby ensuring a swift and efficient process. Although not a punitive action under the Service Rules, suspension is a drastic discretionary power that can significantly harm an employee's morale, reputation, and financial stability, while also imposing an unnecessary fiscal burden on the government. Therefore, authorities must exercise the utmost care and objectivity when deciding to suspend, ensuring that disciplinary proceedings commence immediately and are expedited, with the State Government providing clear guidelines to uphold these principles. If an employee is suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, then the further proceedings against him should be initiated immediately after suspension. Once the disciplinary proceedings commence-contemplated or pending, the same should be proceeded with the necessary urgency and concluded as early as possible. The State Government should issue appropriate instructions to the concerned authorities to bear in mind these parameters, while suspending an employee."

4. As regards the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for

the petitioner that the suspending authority i.e. Collector, Beawar

[2025:RJ-JD:16912] (4 of 4) [CW-6962/2025]

lacks the administrative competence to pass the order in question,

which is assailed in the present petition, the petitioner is at liberty

to approach the suspending authority under Rule 13(5) of the CCA

Rules, 1958 and the suspending authority shall give reasons in

writing as to how he is empowered to pass the impugned order. In

case, the petitioner is dissatisfied with the reasons, he is at liberty

to challenge the order under Section 91 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the appellate authority of the

Collector shall entertain the appeal in accordance with law and