Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babulal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:30108) on 10 July, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:30080]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9652/2025
Kiran Singaria W/o Vikram Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 69,
Gali No. 3, Sargara Colony, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur. At Present
Tehsildar Posted At Jda, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue (Group I), Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. District Collector, District Phalodi.
4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dechu, District Phalodi.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9656/2025
Babulal S/o Gordhan Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Jori Ka
Bas, Noowa, District Nagaur. At Present Tehsildar Posted At
Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue (Group I), Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. District Collector, District Phalodi.
4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dechu, District Phalodi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jala and
Mr. Devendra Singh Pidiyar for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
Mr. S.R. Paliwal
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
10/07/2025
1. The present petitions have been filed aggrieved of orders
impugned dated 05.05.2025 (Annex.10 and 8 respectively)
[2025:RJ-JD:30080] (2 of 6) [CW-9652/2025]
whereby the petitioners have been put to suspension in
contemplation of a departmental enquiry.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following
grounds:
(i) There was no application of mind by the Authority before
passing the order impugned whereas as is the settled position of
law, the Authority, before passing an order of suspension, is under
a mandate to apply its mind on the nature of allegations etc.
(Mumtaz Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.799/2012) decided on 27.08.2012.
(ii) The order of suspension has been passed by the Authority
only at the instance of higher Authorities and no independent
application of mind of the authority concerned is reflected from
the order impugned. Order of suspension if passed only at the
instance of higher authorities, cannot be termed to be valid and
deserves to be quashed. [Mumtaz Ali (supra)].
(iii) The allegations qua the petitioners pertained to the tenure
when they were posted at Setrawa, District Phalodi. On the date of
suspension, they were posted at JDA, Jodhpur and Jayal, District
Nagaur respectively. Hence, they were not in a position to temper
any of the evidence even if an enquiry was to be conducted
against them. In those circumstances, suspension was not even
required. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11696/2022; Jodharam
Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. affirmed in D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No. 979/2022; State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs.
Jodharam Bishnoi) decided on 13.03.2023.
3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent Department
submits that the order impugned is totally in consonance with Rule
[2025:RJ-JD:30080] (3 of 6) [CW-9652/2025]
13 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal), 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958') as
the same provides for suspension of an employee in two
circumstances:
Firstly, where a departmental enquiry is contemplated against him
or is pending and secondly, if any investigation or trial in criminal
proceedings is pending against him.
4. Counsel submits that the application of mind by the authority
passing the order of suspension is explicit and clear from the
communication of the same date i.e. 05.05.2025 made by the
Collector of the concerned district to the authority whereby a
preliminary enquiry report qua the petitioners was
forwarded/furnished to him.
5. Counsels further submitted that even otherwise it is not a
mandate of Rule 13 of Rules of 1958 to assign the reasons when
the order of suspension is in contemplation of an enquiry.
6. Counsel submitted that it was evident on record that
petitioners had issued 'agriculturist certificate' to various
incumbents whereas no such incumbent could have been termed
to be an 'agriculturist' in terms of law. It is only after a preliminary
enquiry been conducted qua the said allegations and an enquiry
report been submitted that it was decided by the authorities that a
detailed disciplinary/departmental enquiry is essential in the
matter and hence, contemplating such enquiry, the petitioners
were placed under suspension. Counsel submitted that the
authority concerned was very well competent to do so.
7. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
[2025:RJ-JD:30080] (4 of 6) [CW-9652/2025]
8. So far as the ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners
to the effect that the petitioners could not have been placed under
suspension for the reason that on the date of suspension, they
were not posted at the same place and had already been
transferred to some other place is concerned, the same is not a
mandate provided by any statute.
9. No provision of law prescribes that an employee who is not
posted at the same place qua the tenure of which an enquiry is
contemplated, cannot be put to suspension. The only requirement
as per the ratio laid down in several earlier judgments on the issue
of suspension is that, power of suspension has to be exercised
sparingly and after due care. What has been held is that no
unfettered discretion is vested with the competent authority to
pass order of suspension of an employee according to its sweet
will, whim and fancy. (Dr. B.M. Bohra Vs. State of Rajasthan;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6588/1990) decide on 18.02.1991.
10. A bare perusal of the report/communication dated
05.05.2025 (Annex.8) reflects that the authority concerned had,
prior to passing of the order of suspension, directed for a
preliminary enquiry in the matter. Vide the enquiry report, when it
was furnished that the petitioners had misconducted themselves
and had issued 'agriculturist certificates' dehors the rules and law,
the authority proceeded on to place the petitioners under
suspension while contemplating a departmental/disciplinary
enquiry. By no means it can be concluded that order impugned
has been passed without application of mind.
11. This Court is of the clear opinion that it is not always
mandatory or essential to assign all the reasons in the order of
[2025:RJ-JD:30080] (5 of 6) [CW-9652/2025]
suspension when Rule 13 (1) itself does not lay down any
mandate for the same. Rule 13 (1) simply specifies the conditions
when an incumbent/ government employee can be placed under
suspension. Contemplation of an enquiry is one of the said
statutory ground and hence, suspension in contemplation of an
enquiry and that too, after a preliminary enquiry having been
conducted, cannot by any means termed to be an order without
application of mind.
12. So far as the ground that the petitioner had been transferred
to some other place and therefore should not have been
suspended is concerned, the said proposition also is not supported
by any provision of law. It is not a mandate that any incumbent
who is accused of serious misconduct and irregularities cannot be
suspended if he/she has been transferred to some other place.
So far as the view taken by the Division Bench in Jodharam
Bishnoi (supra) is concerned, the same would not apply to the
present matter as therein the order impugned itself was not in
consonance with Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of 1958. Therein, the
order did not reflect any contemplation of enquiry and even no
material was available on record to substantiate the application of
mind by the Authority concerned.
13. So far as the ground raised regarding the order of
suspension been passed at the instance of higher authorities is
concerned, the said ground is also not tenable as it is the
Registrar, Board of Revenue who is the highest authority of the
department, competent to suspend a Tehsildar.
14. The crystal clear fact which is available on record is that the
petitioners i.e. the Tehsildars at that point of time, issued
[2025:RJ-JD:30080] (6 of 6) [CW-9652/2025]
hundreds of 'agriculturist certificates' in favour of several
incumbents on basis of the registered sale deeds of agricultural
lands in their favour for agricultural land of a meagre area of
about 40 to 50 square feets. Evidently, any person holding
ownership of an agricultural land for 40 to 50 square feets cannot
be termed to be an 'agriculturist' in terms of the definition as
prescribed under Section 5 (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,
1955. The petitioners being the Tehsildars were under a bounden
duty to ensure that the incumbents in whose favour they were
issuing the certificates did fall within the definition as prescribed
by law.
15. In the clear opinion of this Court, the orders impugned can
neither be termed to be orders passed without application of mind
nor dehors any law. Orders impugned been passed in consonance
with Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of 1958, does not deserve any
interference.
16. The writ petitions are hence, dismissed.
17. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
172-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
