Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Malviya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:16526) on 27 March, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:16526]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 958/2025

Mahendra Malviya S/o Tulsa Ram Malviya, Aged About 52 Years,
R/o Uchiyada, Bilara, District Jodhpur, (Rajasthan).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
         Panchayati Raj Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2.       Additional Commissioner/joint Secretary-I, Department Of
         Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3.       Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (Raj.).
4.       Block Development             Officer,       Bilara,      District   Jodhpur
         (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. M.S. Godara
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. I.R. Choudhary - AAG



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

27/03/2025

1. Petitioner, serving as VDO, seeks quashing of order dated

10.01.2025 (Annexure-1), vide which he was transferred from

Panchayat Samiti Bilara to Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and the order

dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure-2) placing the services of the petitioner

under suspension.

2. Vide an order dated 17.01.2025 interim relief was granted to

the petitioner by staying the operation of the impugned orders,

which reads as under:-

"1. On the fact of it, the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 (Annex.2), placing the services of the petitioner under suspension, does not appear to have arisen from any administrative reason and/or any dereliction of duty on the part of petitioner, but rather from extraneous reasons, as is evident from the language used therein.

2. As far as the impugned transfer order dated 10.01.2025 (Anenx.1) is concerned, the same is in conflict with Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayatri Raj Act, 1994, read with the judgment

[2025:RJ-JD:16526] (2 of 6) [CW-958/2025]

rendered in Kera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2909/2024, decided on 03.07.2024.

3. Issue notice, returnable on 05.02.2024. Liberty is granted to serve through the nominated counsel for the official respondents.

4. Meanwhile, operation and effect of the impugned transfer order dated 10.01.2025 (Annex.1) qua the petitioner shall remain stayed until the next date of hearing. The petitioner shall also be allowed to discharge his duties at the current place of posting, and his suspension order under challenge herein, i.e., 10.01.2025 (Annex.2), shall be kept at abeyance till the next date of hearing."

3. The stay orders so granted continue to subsist in favour of the

petitioner till date. Resultantly, his grievance caused by the then

circumstances stood mitigated and continues to be posted at the

same location. It is not clear from the record as to how long prior to

passing of the impugned order he had been at the same location.

4. Transfers/work arrangement/posting/deputation (unless it is a

selection post) are a standard and integral aspect of government

employment conditions. Employees do not possess an inherent right

to demand continuation of their service at a specific location.

Personal inconvenience of a government servant must give way to

larger public interest and administrative exigency. The same cannot

be given precedence over the work requirement.

5. In the instant case, given the sheer duration of the interim

protection granted by this Court, its utility appears to have waned

over time.

6. Be that as it may, the interim order dated 17.01.2025 qua

transfer is made absolute, but with liberty to the respondents to pass

fresh order in future, if necessary due to any administrative

exigency.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that

passing of the fresh order would require a prior sanction from the

[2025:RJ-JD:16526] (3 of 6) [CW-958/2025]

competent authority in view of the ban imposed on transfers by the

Government vide Chief Secretary's order dated 04.01.2023, which

was subsequently clarified vide an administrative circular/order dated

03.01.2024.

8. In the premise, in order to obviate any procedural or

administrative hurdle, it is made clear that since the liberty has been

granted by way of issuance of writ of this Court, in the nature of

mandamus, thus fresh decision, if warranted, qua the petitioner shall

be construed to be in continuation of his earlier transfer order

impugned herein. No further prior sanction would be required in

terms of the order dated 04.01.2023 ibid.

9. However, it is made clear that granting liberty to pass fresh

order is not to be construed as a direction of this Court to necessarily

do the same even if there is no such requirement otherwise.

10. As regards challenge to the suspension order dated 10.01.2025

(Annexure-2), on a Court query, counsel for the petitioner informs

that vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2025, petitioner was

suspended from service invoking the powers under Section 13 of

the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 on the pretext that

the departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner

and he has been asked to report at Headquarter, Panchayati Raj

Department, Jaipur. From the record appended with the petition

and the pleadings, it is not borne out as to what is current status

of the departmental proceedings.

11. Be that as it may, in this context, reference may be had to a

judgment rendered by this Court in the case titled Naresh Singh

[2025:RJ-JD:16526] (4 of 6) [CW-958/2025]

Vs. State 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 contemplation of departmental proceedings, forthwith steps shall

[2025:RJ-JD:16526] (5 of 6) [CW-958/2025]

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."

12. In view of the aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority, under

Rule 13(5) of the CCA Rules, is directed to take a decision on the

further continuation of the suspension in accordance with the

[2025:RJ-JD:16526] (6 of 6) [CW-958/2025]

judgment, ibid. Likewise, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to

challenge his suspension order before the Appellate Authority

under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, 1958, in case a favourable

decision is not passed. All issues raised by the petitioner, including

the administrative competence of the authority which has passed

the impugned suspension order, are left open to be looked into by

the competent / appellate authority, as the case may be. The

decision by the Disciplinary Authority shall be taken within a