Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hardev Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17162) on 26 March, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:17162]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10113/2022

Hardev Singh S/o Shri Sube Singh Malik, Aged About 53 Years,
R/o 122, 3, Ward No. 24, Dabwali Road, Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The    Director,     Secondary        Education,          Government    Of
         Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       The District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Secondary,
         Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.
4.       The     Principal,       Mahatma         Gandhi          English   Medium
         Government School, Ratanpura, Sangaria, Hanumangarh.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :   Mr. JS Bhaleria.
For Respondent(s)             :   Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG.



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order(Oral)

26/03/2025

1. Petitioner (a Librarian Grade-III), is before this Court seeking

quashing of an order dated 12.07.2022 (Annex.P/4), vide which,

he was suspended from service. Vide an interim order dated

21.07.2022 passed by this Court, operation and effect of the

impugned suspension order was stayed in the following terms:-

"It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 12.07.2022 (Annex.P/4), the petitioner has been placed under suspension invoking powers under Rule 13 (2) of the Rules of 1958, which has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, neither any criminal case is pending against the petitioner nor he has been arrested.

[2025:RJ-JD:17162] (2 of 5) [CW-10113/2022]

Further submissions have been made that even provisions of Rule 13 (1) of the Rules of 1958 cannot be invoked as neither any inquiry is pending against the petitioner nor there is any reference of same being in contemplation in the order impugned.

In view of the submissions made, issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also, returnable within a period of four weeks.

Notices when issued be given 'dasti' to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the meanwhile and until further orders, effect and operation or order dated 12.07.2022 (Annex.P/4) shall remain stayed."

2. Apropos, petitioner continues to discharge his services

without being suspended during pendency of the writ proceedings.

3. Controversy as to the powers to be invoked by a

disciplinary / suspending authority to suspend an employee in

contemplation of or during pendency of departmental proceedings

and parameters governing thereof have been decided today itself

in a bunch of connected matters by a detailed order / judgment of

even date i.e. 21.02.2025 wherein lead matter is SBCWP No.

1788/2024 (Naresh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

4. The reasons and discussion contained in Naresh Singh's

judgment ibid shall be read as part and parcel of the instant order

and same are not being repeated for sake of brevity. However, it is

deemed appropriate that the concluding part of the judgment be

reproduced for ready reference, which is as below:-

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

[2025:RJ-JD:17162] (3 of 5) [CW-10113/2022]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:17162] (4 of 5) [CW-10113/2022]

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."

5. Resultantly, the present petition is disposed of with direction to

the respondents (the disciplinary/suspending authority of

petitioner) to take a fresh decision under Rule 13 (5) of the

Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 qua the impugned

suspension order of the petitioner in light of the judgment, ibid.

Till the proposed decision is taken, the interim protection granted

to the petitioner by this court, as above, shall continue to enure to

his benefit. In case the suspension is not revoked by the

disciplinary/suspending authority, a speaking order shall be

passed and the petitioner shall be given 30 days to file an appeal

[2025:RJ-JD:17162] (5 of 5) [CW-10113/2022]

before the appellate authority under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules