Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Mukta Verma (Soni) vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20801) on 1 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:20801]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8843/2025
Smt. Mukta Verma (Soni) W/o Shri Nitin, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of 91/200, Gokhle Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner, Transport
And Road Safety Department, Parivahan Bhawwan,
Sahkar Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration),
Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Regional Transport Officer, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
Mr. R.S. Bhati
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
01/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the
order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner has
been placed under suspension.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is
in clear violation of Rule 13(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Rules of 1958') as the said order neither reflect the
contemplation/pendency of any disciplinary proceeding nor does it
reflect that any criminal proceeding is pending against the
petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:20801] (2 of 5) [CW-8843/2025]
3. Per contra learned AAG appearing for the respondent-
Department submits that a charge-sheet has now been issued to
the petitioner initiating the disciplinary proceedings and hence, the
order impugned does not deserve any interference.
4. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
5. Rule 13(1) 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."
6. Meaning thereby, in terms of Rule 13(1) of the Rules of
1958, there are two instances when an employee can be placed
under suspension:
Firstly, where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated
against him or is pending; and
Secondly, if any investigation or trial in some criminal
proceeding is pending against him.
7. Evidently, the order impugned does not reflect any of the
instance as enumerated in Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1958.
Further, a bare perusal of the memorandum of charge-sheet as
annexed along with the reply reflects that the same is of
[2025:RJ-JD:20801] (3 of 5) [CW-8843/2025]
30.04.2025 (Annexure-R/1) i.e. subsequent to the order
impugned dated 22.04.2025.
8. It is a settled position of law that the order of suspension
passed in contravention of the Rules of 1958 can not be sustained
and is considered to be bad in the eyes of law. While exercising
the power of suspension, the concerned Authority must prudently
apply its mind considering the matter and the adverse
consequences thereof. In Dr. B.M. Bohra vs. State of
Rajasthan; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6558/1990 (decided
on 18.02.1991) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur
observed and held as under:
"33....
It is no doubt true that the public employer including
the Government has a right to suspend its employee
at any time in contemplation or during the pendency
of inquiry or during investigation or trial of criminal
case, in which an employee is involved. But such
power of suspension has to be exercised sparingly and
after due care. It is necessary that the competitive (sic
competent) authority must objectively apply its mind
to the nature of the allegation made against the
employee, its gravity and seriousness, the record of
the Government servant and the likely impact on
service or the public interest of the alleged act of
delinquency of the employee. The power of suspension
cannot be exercised as a matter of course. 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."
9. The order impugned, on the face of it, does not reflect any
application of mind by the issuing Authority. Moreover, it does not
assign any reason, even for namesake, as to why the petitioner is
required to be placed under suspension.
[2025:RJ-JD:20801] (4 of 5) [CW-8843/2025]
10. Coming on to the issue whether issuance of the charge-sheet
on 30.04.2025 would entitle the respondents to continue the
petitioner under suspension, this Court places its reliance on its
earlier judgment in the case of Karni Singh vs State of
Rajasthan and Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18012/2019
(decided on 16.03.2022) wherein while dealing with a similar
factual matrix wherein the charge-sheet was issued to the
concerned employee subsequent to the order of suspension, it was
held as under:
"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 beat liberty to proceed
with the departmental proceedings initiated against the
petitioner."
11. In view of the above ratio, this Court is of the considered
opinion that as the order impugned neither speaks of
contemplation of any disciplinary proceedings nor does it reflect
that any criminal proceeding is pending against the petitioner, the
same is not sustainable in terms of Rule 13(1) of the Rules of
1958. Further, the charge-sheet issued subsequent to the date of
suspension order would not make the said suspension order valid
as on the date when it was issued, it was in contravention to law.
[2025:RJ-JD:20801] (5 of 5) [CW-8843/2025]
12. In view of the above observations, the order impugned being
in contravention of Rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1958 deserves to be
and is hereby quashed and set aside. The present writ petition is
hence allowed.
13. It is needless to observe that the respondents shall be at
liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings against the
petitioner, in accordance with law.
14. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
222-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
