Rajasthan High Court Cancels Suspension of Government Employee, Finding Allegations Not Serious and Charges Minor.
The Rajasthan High Court canceled a suspension order against a government employee, stating that the allegations were not serious and the charges were minor. The court reviewed a Writ Petition from the employee, arguing that the suspension did not follow Rule 13 of The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, and lacked reasonable cause. Justice Farjand Ali noted that suspending an employee is meant to be preventive, not punitive. He explained that the suspension should only occur to prevent the employee from interfering with an investigation. Since the alleged misconduct was minor and related to a previous job location about 700 kilometers away, the suspension appeared more punitive than necessary. He also pointed out that the inquiry would start under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958, which is considered less serious than proceedings under Rule 16.
The petitioner, who was working as an AME in the Mining Engineer’s office in Bundi II, was transferred to Jaisalmer. After starting his new role in Jaisalmer, he was suspended under Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958. The suspension order mentioned that disciplinary actions were being considered against him. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the suspension was illegal and arbitrary since no reasons were given for it. He claimed the order lacked justification for the suspension and noted that the petitioner’s base had shifted from Jaisalmer to Udaipur. The lawyer further stated that the respondent department made a serious legal and factual mistake in issuing the suspension. He emphasized that the alleged misconduct happened while the petitioner was in Bundi, and now he is in Jaisalmer, which is a different area. Therefore, his past actions should not affect his current position. Since he cannot interfere with any investigations from his new location, the suspension seems unjust and more punitive than preventive.
The lawyer also pointed out that the suspension was based on Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958, which allows suspension only when disciplinary proceedings are expected or ongoing. However, the order did not indicate that any such proceedings were started or were pending against the petitioner at the time of the suspension. Additionally, he noted that no charge-sheet was issued, and there were no disciplinary actions or criminal investigations against the petitioner.
The Court initially noted that the order from the respondent department was made carelessly, without even checking the position of the employee being suspended. The Court emphasized that the respondent department’s approach in making such a serious mistake lacked the necessary diligence and proper procedure for issuing suspension orders. It stated that there were no ongoing proceedings or investigations against the petitioner at the time of suspension, which means the department’s actions did not meet the requirements of Rule 13 (1) (a) of the CCA Rules, 1958. The petitioner had been transferred to Jaisalmer, far from where the alleged misconduct occurred, making it unlikely that his presence there could affect any inquiry related to his previous posting. The Court concluded that the department’s suspension of the petitioner was punitive and arbitrary given the circumstances.
The Court also pointed out that the timeline of events showed the suspension order was not in line with legal standards but was made out of stubbornness. The inquiry related to the charge-sheet was based on Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958, and the allegations were not serious, being of a minor nature. The Court believed that while an inquiry could be started for the charges, the suspension was unnecessary, especially since the charges were linked to the petitioner’s former posting in Bijolia. Therefore, the Court decided to grant the petitioner’s request, and the writ petition was approved.
Cause Title: Prakash Mali vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:43433)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate C.S. Kotwani
Respondent: AAG Mahaveer Bishnoi and Advocate Harshwardhan
