JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 7.12.1990 (Annexure-11) passed by the respondent regarding his suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 1958 Rules') be quashed and he may be allowed to continue on the post of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bundi, which he was holding prior to passing of that order. 2. The petitioner joined service as Demonstrator in Pathology on 1.6.1960. He was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 23.4.1966. Then he was promoted as Jr. Specialist on 12.1.1971. In the year 1985 he was promoted as Sr. Specialist. According to his seniority, he came to be designated as Chief Medical & Health Officer. He was initially posted in that capacity at Jhalawar in the year 1986. From there, he was transferred as Sr. Specialist (Medicine) at Pali vide order dated December 10, 1987. Then he was transferred to Kota by order April 30, 1988. After about 15 days, he was transferred from Kota to Bundi as Senior Specialist. The petitioner has made a reference to several orders of transfer between Kota and Bundi. Finally, he joined at Bundi on 15th January, 1990. He was designated as Chief Medical & Health Officer. While holding that post the petitioner was granted sanction for deputation to Lions Club Hospital and Maternity Home, Kota for one year. This sanction was however cancelled by order dated 24th September, 1990. The petitioner has alleged that this sanction was cancelled at the instance of certain persons who are close to the Minister for Health, Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner has further asserted that he wanted one Dr. Narottam Nuwal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bundi to be trained in Leproscopic sterlisation so that his services could be effectively utilised for the family planning programme in the sterlisation camps. When Dr. Narottam Nuwal refused to carry out the order, the petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the Director, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur. Dr. Nuwal threatened the petitioner with adverse consequences because the petitioner had made complaint against him. By the order dated 28th November, 1990, the petitioner was transferred from Bundi to Tonk in the capacity of Senior Specialist (Medicine). Dr. Nuwal threatened the petitioner with adverse consequences because the petitioner had made complaint against him. By the order dated 28th November, 1990, the petitioner was transferred from Bundi to Tonk in the capacity of Senior Specialist (Medicine). The petitioner filed a civil suit against this order of transfer in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bundi and on 5.12.1990, learned Munsif & Judi cial Magistrate Bundi passed an order that status quo be maintained in the matter of transfer of the petitioner and in view of this order, the petitioner claims that he continued to work as Chief Medical & 1-lealth Officer, Bundi, which post he was holding before the passing of order dated 28.11.1990. Immediately after transferring the petitioner, by order dated 1.12.1990, the earlier order dated 27.10.1990 by which Dr. Narottam Nuwal was made to await posting order, was cancelled and it was directed that he shall continue to work at Bundi. 3. According to the petitioner, his transfer has been effected as a measure of punishment on account of his failure to relieve certain Medical Officers and Deputy Chief Medical & Health Officer (Family Welfare) Bundi who were transferred out of Bundi because that would have adversely affected the working of General Hospital of Bundi and the family welfare programme in Bundi. After passing of injunction order by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, the Government passed an order dated 7.12.1990, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner has stated that he was on leave in connection with the marriage of his relation and he came to know about his suspension from the news items published in daily newspapers dated 8th December, 1990. As per this news item, the petitioner is said to have been suspended because of lack of enthusiasm in family welfare programme. This order of transfer has been passed only with the object of circumventing the order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bundi directing the respondents to maintain status-quo regarding transfer of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has claimed that he has done his best in achieving the family planning targets. The percentage of targets achieved during the period of petitioner's working as Chief Medical & Health Officer has been more than those achieved by his predecessor in the corresponding period of previous years. 4. The petitioner has claimed that he has done his best in achieving the family planning targets. The percentage of targets achieved during the period of petitioner's working as Chief Medical & Health Officer has been more than those achieved by his predecessor in the corresponding period of previous years. His role in achieving the family planning programme targets is merely of supervisory nature. The Deputy Chief Medical & Health Officer (Family Welfare) Bundi is primarily responsible for implementation of family welfare programme. Likewise, the Collector is responsible for implementation of 20 Point programme, which includes family welfare programme. The petitioner has stated that the post of Senior Specialist (Gynaecology) and Junior Specialist (Anaesthesia) at Bundi remained unfilled for a very long period. The post of Senior Specialist (Gynaecology) remained virtually vacant from 12th February, 1990 onwards because Dr. (Mrs.) Tripta Kishan Chauhan proceeded on long leave after joining the said post and she left the job on 10.10.1990 after seeking voluntary retirement from service. The post of Junior Specialist (Anaesthesia) was filled as late as on 11th July, 1990. Two Medical Officers who had received training in leproscopic sterlisation were transferred out of Bundi and were relieved on 22nd June, 1990 and therefore, the work of leproscopic sterlisation virtually came to a stand still. Thereafter, one Senior Specialist (Surgery) and a Junior Specialist (Surgery) were sent for training in leproscopic sterilisation, but due to lack of experience they could not perform their job properly. The petitioner has also asserted that there was no static centre outside Bundi City as in many other districts where the family planning sterilisation operations could have been performed. Even the posts of field staff like multipurpose workers, lady health visitors and sanitary inspectors (12, 5 and 11 posts respectively) remained unfilled and even the post of Deputy Chief Medical & Health Officer (Family Welfare) is lying vacant since 6.8.90. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension on the ground of the same being wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust. He has claimed that in several other districts of Rajasthan, there has been a failure of family planning target, but no action has been taken for suspension of any other person. The petitioner has stated that the percentage of sterilisation targets fulfilled in Bundi district upto October, 1990 was 8.7 and upto November it was 15.72 percent. As on 16.12.1990 it was 22.5 percent. The petitioner has stated that the percentage of sterilisation targets fulfilled in Bundi district upto October, 1990 was 8.7 and upto November it was 15.72 percent. As on 16.12.1990 it was 22.5 percent. The petitioner has further stated that family planning programme is a voluntary programme and there are instructions from the Government not to use force for implementation of this programme. The petitioner has asserted that sterilisation operations are normally got done after the rainy season is over and the process gradually picks up from the month of September onwards. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension on the ground of non-application of mind. The case of the petitioner is that according to the order dated 7.12.1990 he has been suspended on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. However, these proceedings have not even been initiated in as much as no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner. Even his explanation has not been called for. The petitioner has asserted that he has unblemished record of 30 years of service and now he has been suspended when he has to retire from service after 9 months on attaining the age of superanuation on 31st August, 1991. 6. In the reply, the respondent has asserted that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for not achieving the targets of family planning programme for the year 1990. He was Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bundi w.e.f. 15.1.1990 and before his suspension on 7.12.1990 he was over all in charge of the district administration and having supervisory control over the family planning operations. The transfer of the petitioner has been justified on the ground that it was made in the exigencies of service and the administrative exigencies. It was not on account of any pressure of the Health Minister. The facts relating to Dr. Narottam Nuwal have been stated to be irrelevant. The respondent has stated in para 7 of the reply that on evaluation of family planning programme all over the State it was found that the petitioner did not achieve the targets fixed for the districts of which he was in charge for the whole year and as such he was placed under suspension and an inquiry was initiated against him. In para 8, it has been stated that he has disobeyed the Government directions as he has not achieved the targets and has shown apathy towards the national programme and for this reason, an inquiry has been initiated. On evaluation of his work, it was found that he is not taking interest in family planning programme and he was g laced under suspension for his negligence and apathetic attitude towards the family planning programme. In para 10, it has been stated that inspite of timely reminders from the State Government, the targets of family planning programme fixed for Bundi district were not achieved. The excuse of scanty of staff or doctors is not available to the petitioner. However, he has every right to explain his conduct before the enquiry and his explanation will be considered by the competent forum in the regular enquiry. In para 11, it has been stated that the comparative statement for all the districts will show that the compliance of the family planning programme is very poor. The targets of sterilisation were found less in the Bundi District, in the District of Jalore, Barmer, Sawai Madhopur, Doongarpur and Dholpur. But there was good and sufficient explanation for Jalore and Barmer districts because the entire medical staff in those two districts was busy with the situation arising out of floods and thereafter in controlling the epedemic of malaria and viral fever. For Sawai Madhopur and Doongarpur District, the explanation was that no single Doctor worked there during the year. At Sawaimadhopur District, four doctors remained in office during the year. In Doongarpur District, two doctors remained in the office during the year and in Dholpur District two doctors remained in the office during the year 1990 and, therefore, no single person in these districts can be held responsible for the poorest performance in achieving the targets of family welfare programmes. In the case of Bundi District, the petitioner remained In charge of the Family Welfare Programme for whole of the year. In para 12 it has been stated that the targets of family planning programme were scrutinised and checked on 7th December, 1990. A review meeting was taken by the Chief Minister and Health Minister in which the Secretary, Medical & Health, Director Medical and Health and all Chief Medical & Health Officers were called in the meeting. In para 12 it has been stated that the targets of family planning programme were scrutinised and checked on 7th December, 1990. A review meeting was taken by the Chief Minister and Health Minister in which the Secretary, Medical & Health, Director Medical and Health and all Chief Medical & Health Officers were called in the meeting. It was found that the petitioner was having lowest target without explanation and therefore, he was ordered to be placed under suspension. In view of the results of the Review meeting, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Government. On 7.12.1990, a decision was taken to initiate inquiry against him and during inquiry and in contemplation of inquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Inquiry was immediately initiated. In para 13(b) the respondent has stated that even assuming, though not admitting, that inquiry was not pending by strict interpretation of rules but still suspension in contemplation of enquiry is not bad. The petitioner has filed two representations, which are under examination and charge sheet is under process. 7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply in which it has been reiterated that the Deputy Chief Medical & Health Officer (Family Welfare) was directly responsible for implementation of the family planning programme and the achievement of its targets in the District of Bundi. The allegation of lack of supervisory control on the part of the petitioner over the family planning programme has been denied. A letter dated 1st September, 1990 written by the Collector, Bundi to the Secretary, Medical & Health Department has been placed on record as Annexure-14, wherein the causes for slow progress of family planning programme were enumerated. According to the petitioner, the targets have been fixed for the districts for whole of the year 1991 i.e. 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991 and therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to say that for whole of the year 1990-91 targets have not been achieved. The petitioner asserted that sterilisation operations are generally avoided by the public at large during the summer and rainy season and with the on-set of winter, the programme is intensified and geared up. The petitioner has denied that he had disobeyed the Government directions for achieving the targets. He has also denied the allegations of apathy and negligence towards national programme. The petitioner has denied that he had disobeyed the Government directions for achieving the targets. He has also denied the allegations of apathy and negligence towards national programme. The petitioner has further stated that in the entire State of Rajasthan, the petitioner has been singled out for suspension on account of alleged non-achievement of family planning targets. The petitioner has stated that the family planning programme has been categorised under 4 heads, name ly, sterilisation, I.U.D., O.P. Cycles and Nirodh distribution and if the performance of Bundi district is assessed under all the heads, it is clear that the performance in Bundi District was not bad as compared to other districts. The respondent deliberately took into consideration only sterilisation and I.U.D. The petitioner has referred to the Circular dated 23rd November, 1990 of the Director, Medical & Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur, in which it was stated that none of the district has completed the norm of 45% in all methods of family welfare programme. According to him, no further material was available between 23.11.1990 and 7.12.1990 to single out the petitioner. In fact the family planning programme had started picking up gradually and his performance was better than his predecessors-The petitioner has alleged that the suspension has been brought about in order to gain cheap popularity because the news item regarding his suspension was got published in the daily news-papers even before service of order of suspension on him. The petitioner has alleged in para 9 of the rejoinder that the documents Annexure R/1 and R/2 placed by the respondents are misleading inasmuch in respect of Bundi District, achievement of target upto 31st October, 1990 has been taken into consideration although the documents alleged to be for the targets achieved up to November, 1990. In para 10, the petitioner has alleged that he was not invited to any review meeting held on 7th December, 1990. He has denied that he was having lowest target and has stated that without calling any explanation, he was placed under suspension arbitrarily. No inquiry is pending against him. 8. An additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 22.1.1991 and also one by the petitioner on 23.1.1991. He has denied that he was having lowest target and has stated that without calling any explanation, he was placed under suspension arbitrarily. No inquiry is pending against him. 8. An additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 22.1.1991 and also one by the petitioner on 23.1.1991. In his additional affidavit, the petitioner has produced copies of Circulars dated 9.4.90, 13.9.90, 4.10.90 and 8.10.90 to show that he had given instructions to all Doctors working under his jurisdiction for achieving family planning targets. He has also produced a copy of the letter dated 8.10.90 wtitten to the Director, Medical & Health Services pointing out that the programme was being hampered on account of non-availability of expert persons like Surgeons etc. and on account of the fact that the post of Deputy Chief Medical & Health Officer (Family Welfare) was lying vacant for two months. He also pointed out that the post of Senior Specialist Gynaecologist was lying vacant. Vehicles were not available and even vaccination vehicles were not made available. 9. In its additional affidavit, the respondent has placed on record a circular dated 9.4.90 issued by the Government of India fixing the family planning targets. A letter of the Secretary, Medical & Health Services dated 2.5.1990 addressed to the Director, Medical & Health Services (Family Welfare) regarding achievement of the targets has also been placed on record. Another letter dated 30th April, 1990 of the Minister for Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has been placed on record, in which it has been indicated that 15% of the targets were expected to be achieved during the first quarter of 1991, 20% during the second quarter, 30% during the third quarter and 35% during the fourth quarter. A letter dated 4.6.1990 of the Director, Medical & Health Services addressed to all Chief Medical and Health Officers has been placed on record. In this letter, it has been stated that lower targets have been fixed in the first and second quarters for various reasons including the reason that the people are busy in harvest and also on account of hot weather and subsequent monsoons. Another Circular of the Director, Medical & Health Services (Family Welfare) issued on 30.10.1990 has been placed on record by which the Chief Medical and Health Officers were directed to allot some targets to the Gram Panchayats after consulting public representatives. 10. Another Circular of the Director, Medical & Health Services (Family Welfare) issued on 30.10.1990 has been placed on record by which the Chief Medical and Health Officers were directed to allot some targets to the Gram Panchayats after consulting public representatives. 10. On 18.12.1990, this court had given directions to the learned Additional Government Advocate to keep the relevant record ready, in which the matter regarding petitioner's transfer from Bundi to Tonk and the case of the petitioner for passing the order of suspension have been dealt with. Learned Additional Government Advocate sought time on 20.12.90 and again on 2.1.1991. On 3.1.1991, learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to produce the record and was also directed to show to the Court as to why action had not been taken for suspension of all doctors working within the jurisdiction of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bundi and also why no such action had been taken against the Chief Medical and Health Officers, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Tonk, Dholpur and Doongarpur where performance in family planning programme had been quite poor. A note sheet was produced before the court, which indicated that in a meeting, which was undertaken by the Chief Minister for review of the family planning Programme, a decision had been taken to suspend the Chief Medical & Health Officers responsible for poor performance in achieving the family planning targets and thereafter, a note was prepared by the Special Secretary, Medical and Health with reference to four districts only. The consideration was confined to two heads of family planning programme, namely, Sterlisation and 1. U. D. There was no consideration regarding other districts and of the other two heads. That note-sheet did not indicate that any meeting had been held in which the Chief Medical & Health Officers of various districts had been called. Learned Additional Advocate General when asked to show as to whether the petitioner had been called in any such meeting expressed his inability to produce any such document. The respondent also did not produce any material to show that as to why action had not been taken against various doctors and Chief Medical & Health Officer as indicated in the order sheet dated 3.1.1991. 11. The respondent also did not produce any material to show that as to why action had not been taken against various doctors and Chief Medical & Health Officer as indicated in the order sheet dated 3.1.1991. 11. From the material, which has come on record it is evident that the petitioner has been holding the post of Chief Medical & Health Officer Bundi from 15.1.90 and his substantive cadre is that of Senior Specialist. It has also come on record that the posts of Senior Specialists, Gynaecologist and Junior Specialist, Anesthesia have remained unfilled for the district of Bundi. Letter of the Collector, Bundi dated 1.9.90 which has been addressed to the Secretary, Medical and Health and which has been placed on record as Annexure-14 shows that the family planning programme was virtually at a stand still and for that main reasons were transfer of the doctors and on account of the fact that the post of Senior Specialist in Gynaecolo real was vacant despite promotion having been made. The post of Specialist in, Laproscopy was also lying vacant for long time and it was necessary to open static centers for laparoscopic cases at Nainwa, Keshorai-Patan, Kapren and Talera. Another important reason given was that an additional sum of Rs. 150/had not been made available for the families of SC/ST and it was not possible to create enthusiasm amongst these castes for family planning till sanction for the said amount was given. The petitioner has stated that there is a separate post of Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer (Family Welfare) Bundi, the holder of which is primarily responsible for implementation of family welfare programme, but this post is still lying vacant. It is also borne out from the record that the targets fixed for the first six months are only 35% of the total targets. The Government has also realised that the progress of family planning programme is comparatively slow during first two quarters on account of various facts like harvest, hot weather and subsequent monsoon and also on account of the fact that preliminaries will have to be completed by the staff. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he had issued various circulars to staff working under him impressing upon them that they should take steps for achieving the family planning targets. Teams were also constituted for effectively recognising the family planning camps at serveal places. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he had issued various circulars to staff working under him impressing upon them that they should take steps for achieving the family planning targets. Teams were also constituted for effectively recognising the family planning camps at serveal places. A look at Annexure 13 as well as Annexures R/1 and R/2 would show that targets achieved for Bundi district upto the month of October, 1990 were 8.74% so for as the sterlisation is concerned. The same were 42.46% in I. U. D. (November 1990), 56.45% in O. P. Cycle (October 1990) and 33.27% in Nirodh distribution (1990). In comparison, sterlisation targets achieved upto November, 1990 in Tonk were 12.10% Bharatpur 11.87%,Dholpur 10.97%, Jalore 3.37%, Barmer 3.86%, Pali 12.87%, Sirohi 12.71%, Jodhpur 16.71%, Jhalawar 12.60%, Sawai Madhopur 5.63% and Doongarpur 8%. The I. U. P. achievements for the districts of Jaipur, Jhunjhunu and Jodhpur were 18.61%, 19.56% and 18.13% respectively. Similarly, O.P. Cycle targets.achieved till October, 1990 for the districts of Jaipur, Alwar and Jodhpur were 32.10%, 31.17% and 38.74% respectively. Nirodh distribution targets during this period for the districts of Nagaur, Jaipur, Ganganagar and Jodhpur 13.49%, 24.44%, 18.21% and 16.27% respectively. These figures have been given out only for the purpose of illustration to show that the targets achieved under different heads of family welfare programme in different districts have been very poor. As a matter of fact in almost all districts, there has been a failure to achievement the targets of 35% by end of September, 1990 and even till November, 1990. The letter of the Director, Medical & Health Services dated 23.9.90 (Annexure-13) shows that progress of all districts was considered as not encouraging. The Director, Medical & Health Services had conveyed the emphasis laid by the Secretary, Medical & Health that corrective measures be immediately taken up to gear up the huge gape in the fields of achievement in all methods so that unnecessary burden may not fall on the next months of the current financial year. This shows that failure to achieve the family planning targets by various methods is common in all districts of Rajasthan, for which different Chief Medical & Health Officers are working. They are under the over all control of the Director, Medical & Health Services and' Family Welfare. This shows that failure to achieve the family planning targets by various methods is common in all districts of Rajasthan, for which different Chief Medical & Health Officers are working. They are under the over all control of the Director, Medical & Health Services and' Family Welfare. In turn, the entire department of Medical & Health is under the control of Secretary, Medical and Health. The respondent has not shown as to what has been the supervisory negligence on the part of the petitioner in achieving the family planning targets by different methods. It has not been indicated as to how the petitioner is responsible for posting of various doctors in his district. It has not been indicated as to how the petitioner is responsible for keeping the posts vacant. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever called for any meeting held for review of the family planning programme. The respondent has not placed on record any material to show that the petitioner has ever been told of any lapses on his part and to take corrective measures except the general circulars issued by the Director, Medical and Health services on 23.11.90. No material has been placed on record or referred to by the respondent to show negligence or apathetic attitude of the petitioner towards the family planning programme. In fact, various circulars issued by the petitioner from time to time show that the petitioner did take steps to give instructions to the doctors working under him to take steps for fulfilment of targets of family planning. Letter of the Collector, Bundi dated 1.9.90 which has been addressed to the Secretary. Medical and Health gives out important reasons for family planning programme having remained at stand still in the District of Bundi, and for none of those reasons, the petitioner can possibly be held responsible. Can it be said that the petitioner be charged with supervisory negligence to such a degree as to warrant action like suspension. If that is the measure of fixing responsibility of the petitioner, where would it logically end. Can it be said that the petitioner be charged with supervisory negligence to such a degree as to warrant action like suspension. If that is the measure of fixing responsibility of the petitioner, where would it logically end. Can it be said that the Secretary Medical and Health Department and the Director, Medical and Health Services who are the higher authorities of the department and have over all supervisory control over all Chief Medical and Health Officers, be also held accountable and be made responsible for failure of various Chief Medical and Health Officers, to achieve the family planning targets in various districts of Rajasthan ? Can they be held responsible for supervisory negligence or be made accountable for the so-called failure of others to achieve the family planning targets ? Shri M. I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Ashok Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate emphatically submitted that the Secretary, Medical and Health Department or the Director, Medical and Health Services cannot possibly have any direct control over the actual implementation of the family planning programme. They can lay down policy guidelines and give instructions to the Chief Medical and Health Officers and provide facilities for carrying out the family planning programmes. Mere failure of the family planning programmes in different districts cannot constitute a valid basis for saying that they are guilty of supervisory negligence. 12. Shri A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that if the higher authorities cannot be held responsible for failure of family planning programme, the petitioner could hardly be charged with the allegation of gross misconduct so as to warrant disciplinary action and suspension. 13. On the question of suspension, Shri A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 does not confer an absolute power on the competent authority to place a Government Servant under suspension. This power has to be exercised fairly and reasonably and in public interest as well as in the interest of service. There are inherent checks in the exercise of power of suspension. The power cannot be exercised in order to victimise an individual for extraneous reasons. This power has to be exercised fairly and reasonably and in public interest as well as in the interest of service. There are inherent checks in the exercise of power of suspension. The power cannot be exercised in order to victimise an individual for extraneous reasons. Shri Sharma argued that the competent authority has to apply its mind to the gravity of the allegation of mis-conduct and also take into consideration whether continuance of the Government Servant in the office would cause injury to the public interest. Only after this exercise, the order of suspension can be passed. Shri A. K. Sharma urged that in the present case, there has been a total non-application of mind by the competent authorities with reference to the relevant circumstances and the petitioner has been suspended only because he has be. i found inconvenient at Bundi. Shri Sharma argued that if proper medical personnel had not been made available and facilities had not been provided, it could hardly be said that the petitioner was guilty of supervisory negligence. He argued that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he had taken all possible steps to gear up the staff and equipments for carrying out the family planning programme and for achieving the targets. He had given necessary instructions and guidance to his subordinate officers and employees. Shri Sharma laid stress on the fact that there had been a slackness in the family planning programme in the entire State of Rajasthan during first two quarters and it had started picking-up in the third quarter. He pointed out that the figures supplied by the Government regarding the District of Bundi related to the period upto October, 1990, whereas of the other districts related to November, 1990 and in fact the achievements for Bundi district only under two heads, namely, sterlisation and I.U.D. were taken into consideration ignoring the achievements in other two heads, namely, O. P. Cycle and Nirodh distribution. He also pointed out that for other districts, the targets under different heads were much lower than the district of Bundi and those cases were not even taken into consideration, what to say of suspending other Chief Medical and Health Officers. This, according to Shri Sharma, shows that the respondents had arbitrarily picked up the petitioner for suspension on the allegation of alleged supervisory lapse. This, according to Shri Sharma, shows that the respondents had arbitrarily picked up the petitioner for suspension on the allegation of alleged supervisory lapse. He further argued that the allegations of apathy or negligence made against the petitioner in the reply are wholly unfounded. Shri sharma laid emphasis on the facts that the respondents had come out with a wrong case that the petitioner and been called in the meeting held on 7.12.1990 for review of the family planning programme. He further argued that various circulars issued by the Government provide safeguards against arbitrary exercise of the power of suspension. These safe-guards are very vital so far as the Government servants are concerned. He submitted that there had been whole-sale breach of these instructions by the very Government which had issued them. In the last, Shri Sharma argued that the power of suspension had been exercised on the premise that the departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner whereas, the fact'was that such inquiry had not even been initiated. He pointed out that even from the reply, it cannot be made out as to whether power of suspension was exercised during the pendency of inquiry or in contemplation of inquiry because at various places the respondents had pleaded that inquiry had been initiated against the petitioner and in the legal submissions, it was stated that the power of suspension had been exercised during pendency and in contemplation of inquiry. 14. Shri M. I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Ashok Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate have forcefully submitted that the power of suspension, which vests with the Government is absolute and unfettered. The Government has a right to suspend a Government servant at any time in contemplation or during pendency of inquiry or during pendency of a criminal case. They argued that the petitioner had been suspended because of his total neglect towards the family planning programme in the district of Bundi. The Government had examined the whole issue and since the petitioner was over-all incharge of the district and had failed to take interest in the national programme, which is vital and of great importance to the entire country, the order of suspension of the petitioner was passed. Shri M. I. Khan argues that whether it be a contemplation of inquiry or pendency of inquiry, the order of suspension cannot be treated as illegal because of some mistake. Shri M. I. Khan argues that whether it be a contemplation of inquiry or pendency of inquiry, the order of suspension cannot be treated as illegal because of some mistake. He stated that the Government had taken note of the progress made in the family planning programme in the different districts and then came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not taking interest in the family planning programme. After examination of the matter at the highest level, a decision was taken to suspend the petitioner. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the power of suspension has been exercised in good faith and in public interest. With reference to the various circular issued by the Government, it was submitted by Shri M. 1. Khan and Shri Ashok Parihar that these circulars are mere administrative instructions and non-compliance of the same cannot render the order of suspension illegal. These circulars only provide guide-lines. They cannot be treated as fetters on the absolute power of suspension which vests with the Government or the other competent authority. 15. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1958 were issued vide Notification No. F. 16 (2) Appointments (A)/56 dated 11th December, 1956.. Prior to the enactment of these Rules, provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1950 were in force. The rules of 1950 as well as the Rules of 1958 contain provisions relating to classification and control, disciplinary matters and appeals/review against the orders of punishment. Under both these sets of Rules, the power of suspension was/has been conferred on the competent authorities including the Government. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 rules, which is relevant for the purpose of present controversy is quoted below : "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 preceding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial : Provided that where the order of suspension is made by a lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. (2) A Government Servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the Appointing Authority and shall remain under suspension until further order. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. (4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void if consequence or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations in which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. (5) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate." 16. The Government had, from time to time, felt necessity of issuing administrative instructions to provide guidelines in the matter of suspension and departmental inquiries because suspension and delay in departmental inquiries cause harassment and also at times results in wasteful expenditure of public funds. Therefore, the Government issued instructions containing guidance for exercise of the power under Rule ( ? illegible) or such similar rule contained in 1950 Rules. Therefore, the Government issued instructions containing guidance for exercise of the power under Rule ( ? illegible) or such similar rule contained in 1950 Rules. All these circulars have been issued by the Appointments Department or the Department of Personnel, which has the right under the Rules of business to issue policy guidelines of general application in respect of all Government servants in different cadres of various services serving under the Government of Rajasthan. Circular No. D. 2900 (F.25 (18) Apptt (A)/58 dated 25th March, 1958, circular No. D. 1166/59/R.19(27) Apptt (A-60) dated 17.3.1960 and order No. F. 3 (28) Apptt/(A-Ill) 69 dated 27.4.1970 are quoted below : Circular dated 25th March, 1958 Sub : Suspension of Government Servants Pending Departmental Enquiries. "The question of placing Government servants under suspension and of speeding up the departmental enquiries against Government servants was examined by the Government. It is enjoined on all heads of Departments and Heads of Offices to see that Government servants should not be placed under suspension until there is enough material in hand for proceeding against them and that, as far as possible, departmental inquiries against them should be disposed of within six months at the latest from the date of suspension. Unjustified suspension not only causes undeserved hardship and loss of prestige to the Government servants suspended but also loss to the Government. Ordinarily, a Government servant should he suspended (1) when there is a strong prima facie case against him, which, if proved, would ordinarily result in his dismissal or removal from service and either (a) it is inadvisable that he should continue to perform the duties of his office or (b) his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the en-quiry. (2) To check the tendency of neglecting departmental enquiries the appointing authority, should maintain two statements one showing the number of departmental enquiries which have been pending for more than six months and the other showing the number of persons who are under suspension for more than six months in respect of Gazetted and non-gazetted Government servants in the proforma attached and furnish the same to the Appointments (A) Department at the end of every quarter i.e. the information for the quarter ending 31st March, 30th June, 30th September, and 31st December should reach this department on 20th April, 20th July, 20th October and 20th January, respectively. The return for the quarter ending 31.3.1958 may be sent by 30.4.1958 at the latest. (3) This may be acknowledged and the instructions contained in this circular be brought to the notice of all Appointing Authorities. Circular dated 173.1960 Sub : Expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings. "Government have noticed that departmental proceedings against Government Servants under suspension are often delayed which not only causes undue harassment to the accused officials involved but also result in wasteful expenditure. Besides, such delays defeat the very purpose of enquiries as with the lapse of time it sometimes becomes difficult to achieve, the desired results. With a view, therefore, to guard against such delays and to ensure expeditions disposal of such enquiries, Government are pleased to lay down the following instructions. These should be strictly followed in all cases of suspension of Government employees except where the employees are placed under suspension on account of investigation or trial of any criminal offence. (1) Suspension should be resorted to with caution and only when one of the major penalties prescribed under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, is ultimately likely to be imposed on the delinquent Government servant or when he has been arrested on some criminal charge. (2) Before passing orders regarding suspension the suspending authority should have before it both the preliminary report and the version of the delinquent employee so as to enable to comply with (1) above, as orders passed on the preliminary report alone are likely to be based on one sided version. (3) After suspension efforts should be made to stick to the following time schedule : (i) One week for framing and service of charge sheet and statement of allegations. (ii) Two weeks for. submission of reply to the charge sheet. (This period generally gets prolonged as the Government servant normally wishes to inspect certain records before submitting his reply and it takes long time to collect the record. The heads of Departments, etc. should not take more than one week for this purpose and if necessary they should have the record collected through special messenger). (iii) One week for examination of the reply received in response to the charge sheet. (iv) If departmental enquiry is ordered, the following further time schedule should be observed : (a) one week for preparing a formal charge sheet and statement of allegations and appointment of enquiry officer. (iii) One week for examination of the reply received in response to the charge sheet. (iv) If departmental enquiry is ordered, the following further time schedule should be observed : (a) one week for preparing a formal charge sheet and statement of allegations and appointment of enquiry officer. (b) Two weeks for submission of reply by delinquent officer in response to the charge sheet. (c) one month for departmental enquiry. (d) Two weeks for examination of the enquiry report. (e) Two weeks for issue of show cause notice alongwith a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report. (f) Two weeks for reply to the show cause notice. (The same instructions will apply as indicated under (ii) of item 3 above. (g) one week for examination of reply to the show cause notice and issue of final orders. (4) Priority slip "Suspension Case" should be introduced so that such cases receive prompt attention. (5) With a view to have an overall appraisal of the bottlenecks delaying such cases, if a suspension case is finally disposed of beyond this prescribed time limit, the total time taken in its disposal should be reported to this department for the information of the Chief Secretary as well as Chief Minister, together with an indication of the stages at which it was unduly delayed. (6) An annual statement for each calendar year showing the Government employees placed under suspension and the result of their departmental enquiries should be submitted by all the Heads of Departments to this department so as to enable the Government to exercise a check over the justifiability or otherwise of suspension cases. The foregoing instructions should be adhered to in dealing with cases of both gazetted and non-gazetted employees." Circular dated 7.2.1962 Subject:- Expeditious disposal of departmental enquiry cases in respect of Government employees under suspension. "Under existing instructions the Disciplinary Authorities are required to finalise within six months departmental enquiry cases in respect of Government employees under suspension. The Government order No. D. 2900/F.23 (18) Apptts (A) 58 dated 25th March 1958 and Circular No. D. 16633/S9/F.19(27) Apptts (A) 60 dated the 17th March, 1960 (copies enclosed) are specific on this issue. "Under existing instructions the Disciplinary Authorities are required to finalise within six months departmental enquiry cases in respect of Government employees under suspension. The Government order No. D. 2900/F.23 (18) Apptts (A) 58 dated 25th March 1958 and Circular No. D. 16633/S9/F.19(27) Apptts (A) 60 dated the 17th March, 1960 (copies enclosed) are specific on this issue. Government have repeatedly desired that the departmental enquiries against the suspended employees should be given top priority and personal attention by the disciplinary Authorities, as such a course of action obviates avoidable drain on the State Exchequer and hardship to the Government employees. (2) The scrutiny of the annual statements for the year 1960 showing departmental enquiry cases pending in respect of suspended Government employees, received from the various heads of Departments, has however, revealed that the aforesaid instructions are not being strictly followed with the result that some of these cases have been pending for years. It has been further observed that in some cases the Enquiry Officers have taken a lot of time to complete the enquiries despite Government instructions to complete the departmental enquiries within a specified period. Certain enquiry Officers have been found to be committing serious procedural irregularities in conducting departmental enquiries, despite specific instructions on the subject vide Government circular No. D. 9988/F. 23 (65) Apptts (A)/57 dated the 21st August, 1957 (copy enclosed). This negligence causes further prolongation of the departmental proceedings. (3) Government have, therefore, been pleased to order that : (i) in exceptional cases if any delinquent Government employee has continued under suspension for a period exceeding two years (and he is not being prosecuted in a court of Law), the orders placing such an employee under suspension be immediately withdrawn without prejudice to the decision to be taken in the departmental enquiry case. The decision as to how the period of suspension is to be treated in such a case should, however, be taken when the departmental enquiry against the delinquent is finally decided; (ii) (a) in case where a delay exceeding one year is expected in finalising such a departmental enquiry prior approval of the Administrative Department be obtained by the Heads of Departments concerned; and (b) before according such an approval, the Administrative Departments should also examine whether the Enquiry Officer has been negligent in any respect in expeditiously conducting the department enquiry, and in case they come to a conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has displayed negligence, they should move the Appointments Department for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Enquiry Officer concerned. (iii) where on an appeal to the higher authority or as a result of a Court decision an appeal is accepted due to non- observance of the prescribed procedure either by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority departmental action should invariably be taken against the defaulting Enquiry Officer/ Disciplinary Authority. (4) These orders should be brought to the notice of all the Disciplinary Authorities." 17. The Circulars dated 27.4.1970 and 22.5.1970 can also appropriately be reproduced below : Appointments (A.III) Department Order No. F.3 (28) Apptts (A.III)69, dated 27.4.1970 Sub : Suspension of Government servants. "Government have issued directions from time to time for expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings against Government Servants and also laid down time schedule far various stages of disciplinary proceedings which were reiterated vide Circular No. F.2(9) Apptts. (A.III)/64, dated 26.3.66. Certain broad guidelines in the matter of suspension of Government servants were also laid down vide Order No. D. 2900/F. 23 (18) Apptts (A)/58 dated 25.3.58 which are reproduced below : "Ordinarily a Government servant should be suspended; (1) when there is a strong prima facie case against him and the allegations involve moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline and wilful refusal to carry out orders of superior authority; or (2) where there is a strong prima facie case against him which, if approved, would ordinarily result in his dismissal or removal from service and either (a) it is inadvisable that he should continue to perform the duties of his office, or (b) his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the enquiry. It has been observed that neither the prescribed time schedule for the above guiding principles are being followed strictly. Finalisation of disciplinary proceedings are very much delayed resulting in prolonged suspension of Government servants which not only causes hardships to them but also puts an unnecessary strain on the State Exchequer. Sometimes, suspension is also resorted to in a routine manner which is not conducive to both the Government and its employees. It is, therefore, again enjoined upon the Heads of Departments /Officers competent to place Government Servants under suspension that great care and circumspection should be exercised in the matter of suspension of a Government servant and ordinarily one should be placed under suspension only when a departmental enquiry is pending or contemplated against him or when a criminal case is pending investigation or trial against him, and the gravity of the charge of the offence is such that, if proved, it will most probably lead to his removal or dismissal from service. It is hoped that the matter will receive due attention at all levels and the Government will have no occasion to express their concern time and again." (Appointments (A.III) Department Circular No. F.6 (75) Apptts. (A.III) 69, dated 22.5.70) "A Government servant under suspension is entitled to subsistence grant, as per provisions of Rule 53 of R.S. R. subject to the conditions laid down therein. The subsistence grant may be increased or reduced suitably by the competent authority in the circumstances as explained ~n proviso to Rule 53 (1) (a). The audit instruction below said rule lays down that "the suspending authority has discretion to fix the amount of subsistence grant at a figure which he may think appropriate subject to the prescribed maximum but he has no authority to refuse it altogether in any case which falls within the scope of this rule." Obviously, the grant of subsistence allowance cannot be denied altogether. 2. Doubts have been expressed whether Government servant under suspension who leaves the headquarter without permission is entitled to the subsistence grant for the period of such absence. 3. The position is explained below. The order of suspension should specify the Headquarters of the Government servant during the period the order will remain in force. It should normally be the last place of duty. 3. The position is explained below. The order of suspension should specify the Headquarters of the Government servant during the period the order will remain in force. It should normally be the last place of duty. The competent authority may, however, for reasons to be recorded in writing, fix any other place as his Headquarters in the interest of public service. If the Government servant under suspension requests for a change of Headquarters, the competent authority may accede to the request if he is satisfied that such a course will not put Government to any extra expenditure like grant of T. A., etc. or creating difficulty in investigation or in processing the departmental proceedings, etc. A Government servant under suspension is subject to all the conditions of service applicable to Government servants and cannot leave the Headquarters without prior permission of the competent authority. If he does so, he is liable to disciplinary action on that ground. He is also not to be granted any kind of leave while under suspension in terms of Rule 55 of R. S. R. Rule 53 (2) of R. S. R. provides that no payment of subsistence grant is admissible to Government servant under suspension unless the business, profession or vocation is produced by him. It follows that if he does so, he is liable to disciplinary action on that ground also. The above exposition clearly shows that subsistence grant cannot be refused altogether to a Government servant under suspension in any circumstances may warrant. The absence from Headquarters during suspension has two fold effect, i. e., it may or may not contribute to the prolongation of the period of suspension. In case the absence from headquarters has not contributed to the prolongation of the period of suspension, there could be no reduction in the amount of subsistence grant. But where such absence from headquarters contributes to the prolongation of the period of suspension, the amount of subsistence grant can be reduced in terms of proviso to Rule 53. But it cannot be denied altogether. The only other remedy available is to initiate disciplinary action against the Government servant under suspension. But where such absence from headquarters contributes to the prolongation of the period of suspension, the amount of subsistence grant can be reduced in terms of proviso to Rule 53. But it cannot be denied altogether. The only other remedy available is to initiate disciplinary action against the Government servant under suspension. To sum up, subsistence grant cannot be refused altogether to a Government servant under suspension (not covered by proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 53 of R. S. R.) but it can be reduced either for his absence from headquarters without prior permission or for engaging himself in any other employment, business etc. without prior permission of the competent authority, and for these breaches of rules separate disciplinary action should be initiated, as indicated above. This is clarified for information and guidance of all the disciplinary authorities." 18. Apart from these circulars, several other circulars containing instructions have been issued from (illegible) to date for expeditious disposal of Departmental inquiries. 19. There are three kinds of suspension. A public servant can be suspended as a mode of punishment or he may be suspended during the pendency of in quiry against him if the order appointing him or statutory provisions governing his service provide for such suspension. Lastly, he may merely be forbidden from discharging his duties during the pendency of an inquiry against him, which act is also called suspension. The right to suspend as a measure of punishment as well as a right to sue and the contract of service during the pendency of an inquiry are both regulated by the contract of employment or the provisions regulating the conditions of service. Last category of suspension is the right of the master to forbid his servant from doing the work which he had to do under the terms of the contract of service or the provisions governing his conditions of service. In common parlance a right to appoint includes a right to suspend. The relationship of master and servant between the State and its employees is ordinarily regulated by the statutory enactments, Rules, Regulations or bye-laws. Their relationship is not governed by pure terms of contract, which is known to the common law. The relationship of State and its employees is distinct from the one which exists between private master and servant. The service of Government is known as that of status. Their relationship is not governed by pure terms of contract, which is known to the common law. The relationship of State and its employees is distinct from the one which exists between private master and servant. The service of Government is known as that of status. Right to appoint ordinarily carries with it a right to terminate the service on remove or dismiss a Government servant and it also includes a right to suspended a Government servant. The suspension has been defined as a temporary deprivations of one's office or position. By suspension, an employee is debarred from functioning in the office or holding the position or privilege, until either he is cleared of the charge or is lawfully dismissed or removed from service. This type of suspension which is common to the master and servant relationship regulated by the statutory provisions, is sometimes called interim suspension. Such suspension does not bring the end of relationship of master and servant. The employee continue to be a member of the Government service or the service of the public authority, but he is not permitted to work and wherever the statutory provisions so provide he is entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance which is normally less than his salary. 20. In Kali Prasahna Rai V/s State of West Bengal, (1) AIR 1952 Cal 769 , the Calcutta High Court has lucidly summed up the nature of suspension in the following words : "By reason of suspension, the person suspended does not lose his office nor does he suffer any degradation. He ceases to exercise the powers and to discharge the duties of the office for the time being. His rank remains the same and his pay does not suffer any reduction. He cannot draw his salary during the period of suspension. His powers, functions and privileges remain in abeyance but he continues to be subject to the same discipline and penalties and to the same authorities". 21. His rank remains the same and his pay does not suffer any reduction. He cannot draw his salary during the period of suspension. His powers, functions and privileges remain in abeyance but he continues to be subject to the same discipline and penalties and to the same authorities". 21. In R. P. Kapoor V/s. Union of India (2) AIR 1964 SC 787 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court had discussed the concept and power of suspension and laid down the following proposition of law: "It is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid a servant to work, is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract, or of an express term in the con tract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such power either as an express tern in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay wages during the period of suspension. Where, however, there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay. This principle of law of master and servant is well established." 22. In B. R. Patel V/s State of Maharashtra (3) AIR 1968 SC 800 , the Supreme Court summed up the law regarding suspension in the following words : "The general principle therefore is that an employer can suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his misconduct and the only question that can arise in such suspension will relate to payment during the period of such suspension. If there is no express term relating to payment during such suspension or if there is no statutory provision in any enactment or rule the employee is entitled to his full remuneration for the period of his interim suspension. If there is no express term relating to payment during such suspension or if there is no statutory provision in any enactment or rule the employee is entitled to his full remuneration for the period of his interim suspension. On the other hand, if there is a term in this respect in the contract of employment or if there is a provision in the statute or the rules framed thereunder providing for the scale of payment during suspension the payment will be made in accordance therewith. This principle applies with equal force in a case where the Government is an employer and a public servant is an employee with this qualification that in view of the peculiar structural hierarchy of Government administration, the employer in the case of employment by Government must be (illegible) to be the authority which has the power to appoint the public servant concerned. It followed therefore that the authority entitled to appoint the public servant is entitled to suspend him pending a departmental enquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal proceeding, which may eventually result in a departmental enquiry against him. But what amount should be paid to the public servant during such suspension will depend upon the provisions of the Statute or statutory rule in that connection. If there is such a provision the payment during suspension will be in accordance therewith. But if there is no such provision, the public servant will be entitled to his full emoluments during the period of suspension. On general principles, therefore the Government, like any other employer, would have a right to suspend a public servant in one of the two ways. It may suspend any public servant pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal proceedings; this may be called interim suspension. The Government may also proceed to hold a departmental enquiry and after his being found guilty, order suspension asa punishment if the rules so permit. This will he suspension as a penalty. As we have already pointed out, the question as to what amount should be paid to the public servant during the period of interim suspension or suspension as a punishment will depend upon the provisions of the statute or statutory rules made in that connection." 23. The nature of right of the employer and its extent may now be discussed in some details. The nature of right of the employer and its extent may now be discussed in some details. According to Shri M. I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Ashok Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate, the power conferred on the competent authority under Rule 13 is absolute. On the other hand Shri A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the power is not absolute, but is conditioned one. It can only be exercised in good faith and in public interest. Shri Sharma argued that this Power cannot be exercised arbitrarity. In S. G. Jaisinghaji V/s. Union of India 1967 S. L. R. 482 Hon'ble Ramaswami, J., speaking on behalf of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had made the following observations in the context of arguments of absolute discretion: "In this context it is important to emphasise that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. (See Dicey-"Law of the Constitution"Tenth Edn., Introduction ex). "Law has reached its finest moments" stated Doughlas, J. in United States V. Wunderlich, (1951) 342 US 98 , "when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler....... Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered". It is in this sense that the rule of law may be said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield stated it in classic terms in the case of John Wilkes, (1770) 4 Burr 2528 at p. 2539 means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by honour: it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful." 24. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield stated it in classic terms in the case of John Wilkes, (1770) 4 Burr 2528 at p. 2539 means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by honour: it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful." 24. In E. P. Royappa V/s State of Tamil Nadu (5) 1974 (4) SCC 3 , Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in his concurring judgment made a fine exposition of the concept of equality in the context of arbitrary exercise of power by the State authorities and, therefore, it will be proper to quote the words of Justice Bhagwati. "Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building. up of the new classless egalitaian society envisaged in the Constitution. Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle ? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Rose, J., "a wave of Life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedintic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its allembraching scope and meaning. For to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies. One belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies. One belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14 and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require the State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations. It would amount to malafide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Malafide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vide; in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Ar- titles 14 and 16. 25. In B. K. Sharma V/s State of Rajasthan (6) 1979 (29), ILR 515 , G. M. Lodha. J. (as he then was) discussed the concept of suspension and its implication at length. Although that was a case of prolonged suspension. However the observations made by the court are extremely important. Learned Judge observed : "It should not be forgotten that suspension have got adverse implication as it has serious demoralising effect on a civil servant, as he is looked with contempt amongst his brother. employees and also in the society. It is expected of the State functionaries that they should resort to it only when the case and the subject matter of charge sheet. which is being enquired into is extremely of serious type where by permitting a civil servant to work during that period would result in serious impediment in the inquiry itself or any other adverse effect in the department. which is being enquired into is extremely of serious type where by permitting a civil servant to work during that period would result in serious impediment in the inquiry itself or any other adverse effect in the department. In other words, there must be compelling reason for the disciplinary authority, which of course, cannot be treated on the test of objectivity by the courts, but it should be of such serious magnitude that the disciplinary authority should feel compelled to take extreme step of suspension. Suspension should not be made a rule and should be used sparingly, cautiously and with great restraint. 26. In Ashok Gaur V/s State of Rajasthan, 1987 (2) RLR 63 = 1987 (5) S. L. R. 547 a Division Bench of this Court analysed Rule 13 and also the extent of power of suspension and then held : "From the above discussions, it is apparent that an order of suspension should not be passed invoking power under Rule 13 simply because a disciplinary proceeding is captemplated, or criminal case is under investigation or trial against Government servant. The Appointing Authority has to exercise his discretion in this regard. A Government servant may be put under suspension in the contingencies referred to above. If there are reasons to believe, on the basis of the material available at the time of initiation of proceeding, that he may be guilty of gross misconduct or corruption which, if approved, will lead to dismissal or removal, he may be suspended even if the suspension is likely to continue for a longer period, or where there are reasons to believe that a Government servant if allowed to continue in active service, might tamper with the evidence he may be suspended or, in case a Government servant is facing trial in criminal court he should be suspended, if he has been r used bail and committed to prison." It was then observed : "This rule cannot be taken to confer arbitrary powers upon the Appointing Authority to place a Government servant under suspension simply because a petty case of no importance is pending investigation or trial against a Government servant. While exercising power under Rule 13, in our opinion, the Appointing Authority must apply its mind and see whether it would be in the interest of the Government or in the interest of public at large to place the Government servant under suspension and the circumstances so warrant to place the Government servant under suspension. In every case, there should be proper application of mind before an action is taken against the Government servant for placing him under suspension". 27. In Ashok Gaur's case, the court proceeded to quash the order of suspension of the petitioner who was facing a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 28. In Nand Lal Verma V/s. State of Rajasthan,(8) 1989(1) R.L.R. 601 the same Division Bench made the following observations : "It is true that the Government has a right to suspend its employees in contemplation of departmental proceedings or pending investigation. After the service of the charge sheet if the charges are of a serious nature a Government employee may be suspended pending enquiry. It is now well settled principle that suspension connotes temporary cessation of right to work of temporary deprivation of the office, position or privilege. The real effect of the order of suspension is that though an employee continues to be in service he is not permitted to work and during the period of his suspension he is paid only some allowance which is generally called subsistence allowances. Thus, suspension does not dissolve "vinoulam juris" of the employment relationship. Government has right to suspend an employee pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal investigation. But it is also equally true that such power of suspension cannot be Exercised arbitrarily and without any reasonable ground. The power of suspension is to be sparingly exercised and should not be exercised in vindictive manner and it is expected of an authority passing the order to take into account all the relevant materials, nature of the charge, the attendant circumstances and the necessity or desirability of placing the public servant under suspension. The Government is also conscious of the fact that the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable grounds, therefore, guidelines have been laid down by the Government." 29. In Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. The Government is also conscious of the fact that the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable grounds, therefore, guidelines have been laid down by the Government." 29. In Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. G.P. Santsangi 1984 L.I.C. 54 , one of the Judges of the Division Bench used the following words of caution in the matter of suspension : "Short of dismissal, the worst, that can be fall of an employee is an order of suspension. It is rendered all the more grave in the context of delays and redtapism sadly afflicting the Government set ups and public undertakings, when departmental enquiries take long to get finalised and the suspended employee is perforce made to undergo the agony and suspense of long suspension. The employer too stands to lose with the nonavailability of active service of the employee. The power of suspension is no doubt available under the service conditions and rules governing the employee, but it has to be exercised with circumspection, care and after due application of mind. Normally a sort of preliminary enquiry or investigation is gone through for ascertaining the prima facie view of the matter and whether the circumstances impel recourse to suspension. When they do, the power has to be exercised. In such situation, the disciplinary authority must make a fair and proper assessment of the affair in the given circumstance, and carefully scrutinise that prima facie there exist grave and compelling circumstances which in the light of the material available and collected during the preliminary investigation would lead to the likelihood of removal or dismissal of the employee from service. It may be that formulation of exact punishment that may be finally awarded is not possible at this stage, but a proper judgment exercised can certainly prevent unnecessary harassment and humiliation of suspension." 30. So far as the Circulars of the Government are concerned, it cannot be disputed that they are administrative in nature, but at the same time, the principles of law, which have been laid down by the highest Court of the country during last decade and half clearly establish that these administrative instructions cannot be ignored or deviated without reasonable grounds. In Ramanna Dayaram Shetty Vs. In Ramanna Dayaram Shetty Vs. National Airport Authority of India and others 1979 (3) SCC 489 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to be standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Saton where the learned Judge said : "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged ..... Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed..... This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword. This Court accepted the rule as valid in India in A.S. Ahluwalia vs. Punjab and subsequent decision given in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, Mathew, J. , quoted the above referred observations of Mr. Justice Frankfurter with approval. It may be noted that this rule, though supportable also as an emanation from Article 14, does not rest merely on that article. It is a rule of administrative law which has been judicially evolved as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the executive authority. If we turn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Frankfurter and examine it, we find that he has not sought to draw support for the rule from the quality clause of the United States Constitution, but evolved it purely as a rule of administrative law. Even in (illegible), the recent trend in administrative law is in that direction as is evident from what is stated at pages 540-41 in prof. Wade's "Administrative Law" 4th edition. There is no reason why we should hesitate to adopt this rule as a part of our continually expanding administrative law. Today with tremendous expansion of welfare and social service functions, increasing control of material and economic recourses and large scale assumption of industrial and commercial activities by the State, the power of the Executive Government to affect the lives of the people is steadily growing. Today with tremendous expansion of welfare and social service functions, increasing control of material and economic recourses and large scale assumption of industrial and commercial activities by the State, the power of the Executive Government to affect the lives of the people is steadily growing. The attainment of socio-economic justice being a conscious end of the State policy, there is a vast and inevitable increase in the frequency with which ordinary citizens come into relationship of direct encounter with State power holders. This renders it necessary to structure and restrict the power of the executive Government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise. Whatever be the concept of the rule of law, whether it be the meaning given but Dicey in his "The Law of the Constitution" or the definition given by Hayek in his "Road to Serfdom" and "Constitution of Liberty" or the exposition set forth by Harry Jones in his "The Rule of Law and the Welfare State, Rule of Law and Natural Justice" in "Democracy, Equality and Freedom" substantial agreement in juristic thought that the great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found . It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affection of some right or denial of some privilege. 31. In B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute 1983 (4) SCC 582 , the Supreme Court quoted with approval the observations in Ramanna Daya Ram Shetty's case. The Court rejected the plea that bye-laws which do not have the force of statute, non-compliance of the same cannot affect the appointment made by the employer. In para 24, the Court concluded : In view of the pronouncement of this court on the point, it must be held to be obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 1 to follow bye-laws, if bye laws have been framed for the conduct of its affairs to avoid arbitrariness. In para 24, the Court concluded : In view of the pronouncement of this court on the point, it must be held to be obligatory on the part of the respondent No. 1 to follow bye-laws, if bye laws have been framed for the conduct of its affairs to avoid arbitrariness. The respondent No. I cannot, therefore, escape the liability for not following the procedure prescribed by law." 32. The principles of law enunciated hereinabove show that the every Governmental action including purely administrative acts have to be free from arbitrariness. Wherever, the order is made by a public authority affecting a member of public (he may be a Government employee), it must be made bona-fide, in good faith and in public interest. Fairness in State action is part and parcel of the rule of law, on the edifice of which our Constitution rests. 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. The suspension of an employee results in serious adverse consequences to him because his image is shattered in the eye of public and the society in which he moves. Not only he but his whole family has to bear the burnt and the entire family is looked with contempt by the fellow employees and the members of the society. It is, therefore, necessary that this power of suspension must be exercised after thorough consideration of the matter from different angles. Not only he but his whole family has to bear the burnt and the entire family is looked with contempt by the fellow employees and the members of the society. It is, therefore, necessary that this power of suspension must be exercised after thorough consideration of the matter from different angles. The guidelines contained in the various circulars of the Department of Personnel of the Government of Rajasthan, no doubt, do not have the force of law and it also cannot be said that they must be followed in strict sense, but nonetheless these guidelines cannot be ignored in totality. The guidelines have to be kept in mind and the spirit with which these guidelines have been issued must form part of the consideration, which every competent authority is required to make before passing the order of suspension. As and when the order of suspension is challenged before a court of law and the Government is called upon to justify the order of suspension, it must show from the material on record that there has been application of mind by the competent authority to the relevant factors referred to in the guidelines of the Government. These guidelines cannot be disregarded arbitrarily. They cannot be ignored in totality. The Government, which has issued these guidelines must feel normally bound by the guidelines and if the Court finds that there has been a whole-sale breach of these guidelines that will be a strong circumstance to invalidate the order of suspension, because these guidelines clearly provide for consideration of the factors like involvement of Government servant in the allegation of moral turpitude or the allegation levelled against him involve grave misconduct or failure to carry out the orders of superior authority or where there is a likelihood of major penalty of dismissal or removal being imposed on him. It is also necessary that except in exceptional circumstances, a preliminary inquiry is made before the order of suspension is made against a Government servant. The Government servant should ordinarily be given an opportunity to explain his conduct before a decision is taken to suspend him. Of course, this may not be necessary in cases requiring urgent action for preventing injury to the public interest. The Government servant should ordinarily be given an opportunity to explain his conduct before a decision is taken to suspend him. Of course, this may not be necessary in cases requiring urgent action for preventing injury to the public interest. At times, allegations are made against the Government servants with ulterior motives or extraneous reasons and if he is called upon to submit his explanation, he may satisfy the competent authority that the allegations are baseless, unfounded, malicious or motivated. Then the appropriate authority concerned may not pass an order of suspension against the delinquent Government servant. 33. Now so far as the facts of this case are concerned, it is clear that the petitioner is going to retire on attaining the age of superanuation on 31st August, 1991. The letter written by the Collector, Bundi on 1.9.1990 to the Secretary, Medical & Health Department giving out reasons for the slow progress of family planning programme has not been denied by the respondent. It has also not been denied that the petitioner had issued instructions to the staff working under him to carry out the family planning programme. The respondent has failed to establish that the petitioner was called to attend the meeting held for review of the achievements of the family planning targets. It has also not been denied. that the performance of the district of Bundi under two heads, namely, O.P. Cycle and Nirodh distribution was better than large number of other districts. It has also come on record as a matter of fact that there had been no consideration of the failure of family planning programme in number of other districts and the consideration was confined to 4 districts. It has also not been denied that the consideration was confined to only two modes of family planning programme and two other modes were totally ignored. Not an iota of evidence has been placed on record even to suggest what to say of establishing it that the petitioner had shown negligence in the performance of his duties. The petitioner was not told of so called lapses on his part and was not given an opportunity to explain his so called lapses. It is thus clearly borne out from the record that there has been non-application of mind by the respondents to the relevant factors and circumstances before the order of suspension of the petitioner was made, on 7.12.1990. It is thus clearly borne out from the record that there has been non-application of mind by the respondents to the relevant factors and circumstances before the order of suspension of the petitioner was made, on 7.12.1990. Although the failure of the family planning programme in other districts and failure of the Government to suspend other Chief Medical & Health Officers or other Doctors may by itself not furnish a ground for holding that the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination, but failure of the Government to apply its mind to this factor coupled with the fact that the Government had not taken into consideration the achievements made in Bundi District under two heads of family planning programme and the reasons for non achievement of targets of family planning programme, as indicated in the letter of the Collector Bundi dated 1.9.1990 were such which were clearly beyond the control of the petitioner and also the fact that there is not an iota of evidence suggesting negligence on the part of the petitioner, it must be held that the order of suspension of the petitioner has been passed arbitrarily. A bald allegation of supervisory negligence against the petitioner cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case where the Government had failed to post the Doctors and had failed to apply its mind to the fact that the performance in the other districts was worst than that of Bundi, would clearly establish that the order of suspension has not been passed after the application of mind. If the plea of supervisory negligence simplicitor was to constitute the basis for suspension of the petitioner, the logical consequences of the so-called supervisory negligence of various Chief Medical & Health Officers would be extremely grave. In my opinion, a more allegation of supervisory negligence can hardly furnish basis for concluding that the allegation constitutes grave misconduct, even if it is said that the petitioner could have done better. It cannot be said that the order of suspension of the petitioner under Rule 13 of 1958 Rules is justified. As far as the Government instructions, which have been quoted hereinabove are concerned, from the record which was placed before the court for perusal, it is clearly borne out that the relevant considerations specified in various instructions were totally ignored while taking decision to place the petitioner under suspension. As far as the Government instructions, which have been quoted hereinabove are concerned, from the record which was placed before the court for perusal, it is clearly borne out that the relevant considerations specified in various instructions were totally ignored while taking decision to place the petitioner under suspension. The non-application of mind on the part of the respondent is also evident from the fact that the suspension has been ordered on the premise of pendency of an inquiry. In the reply the respondent has tried to make up this lapse in the issuance of order of suspension by saying that decision was taken to intiate inquiry or that the suspension has been ordered in contemplation of inquiry of during pendency of inquiry. This only shows lope-side approach of the respondent in dealing with its employee of the rank of Chief Medical & Health Officer. A departmental inquiry cannot be treated as initiated till the charge sheet is issued against an employee. This proposition of law has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in P.R. Nayak Vs. Union of India 1972 S.L.R. 219 . Admittedly, in the present case, no charge sheet had been issued to the petitioner on 7.12.1990. Thus the order of suspension passed on 7.12.1990 must be held to have been passed on an incorrect premise.The result of the above discussion is that this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 7.12.1990 passed by the respondent for suspension of the petitioner is declared as illegal and is hereby quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******