JUDGMENT 1. 1. In the present writ petition, the two orders of Excise Commissioner, each January 7, 1992, placing each of the petitioners under suspension under rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the CCA Rules) have been challenged. The petitioner No. 1 is an Excise Inspector in the Excise Department, whereas the petitioner No. 2 is patrolling officer in the said department. The suspension orders have been extracted at pages 9 to 11 of the writ petition. The challenge to the aforesaid orders is inter alia on the grounds (i) the suspension orders have been issued without any material and thus without any objective, satisfaction; (ii) the Excise Commissioner while issuing the orders of suspension has not followed the guidelines issued by the Government, for ordering suspension as per Government Instructions contained in letter No. D. 16633/69/F. 19(27) Apptts (A) 60 dated March 17, 1960; (iii) the preliminary inquiry must have preceded the orders of suspension and no such preliminary enquiry was made; (iv) the suspension orders have been issued by the Excise Commissioner under the directions of the Government and thus there is no application of mind of the Excise Commissioner and the orders of suspension have been issued on the dictates of the superior authorities. 2. First the facts, which are these. The petitioner No. 1 Mani Ram was posted as Excise Inspector at Jaipur South Excise-Circle on July 2, 1991 and the petitioner No. 2 Nenu Ram was posted as Partolling Officer in the said Excise Circle. One Tole Ram filed a report at 2.30 a.m. on July 2, 1991 and alongwith the report he also produced a Maruti Van No. DNB-2545. In the report it was stated by Tola Ram that when he alongwith two other persons was going to Sambhar at Jobner Road in a jeep, at Kalavad Tiraha he saw a Maruti Van standing in which he saw three persons seated in the suspicious circumstances. Seeing his jeep, the aforesaid three persons drove the car towards Jobner but it was chased by him. They stopped the car in kachcha and ran away. While running away, they were saying 'Rajesh Bhag'. It was at about 1.30 a.m. He could not identify them. Thereafter, the name of the two persons who were stopped were also disclosed by him. They stopped the car in kachcha and ran away. While running away, they were saying 'Rajesh Bhag'. It was at about 1.30 a.m. He could not identify them. Thereafter, the name of the two persons who were stopped were also disclosed by him. When the van was opened, 11 gunny bags full of country liquor bottles were found because an offence under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1956 (for short. the Excise Act) was made out, he brought the Van to the Excise lines. The petitioner was present and report was lodged before petitioner No. I who registered a case under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act. It may also be mentioned that another report was also lodged in the police Station Jobner at 6.05 a.m. on July 2, 1991 by one Laxman Singh and in the said report was stated by the informant that in the Maruti Van No. DNB-2545 he was going with his driver Rajesh on July 1, 1991 in the night at about 10 p.m. to his relation Mohan Singh in village Kochiyavas. Near Kalavad there was a jeep and near the jeep about 8 to 10 persons were standing with lathis and one of them was Prahlad Swami who works at the liquor shop in Kalavad. They asked them to stop the car and further asked to take two persons to Jobner, but when it was given out that the Van was not going to Jobner, they started abusing and also grappled with him. It was further stated in the report that they ran away and reached Kuchiyavas, but no sooner they reached there, the persons who were standing near the jeep also came in the jeep and caused injuries with lathi. They raised hue and cry which attracted Mohan Singh and Narain Singh. Seeing both of them the persons who came in the jeep snatched the key of the Van from Rajesh and ran away with the van. A case under Section 147, 323 and 379 IPC was registered at the Police Station, Jobner. 3. A question was put in the Raj. Legislative Assembly by one Mahavir Prasad, MLA on September 6, 1991 in respect of the Aforesaid incident. A case under Section 147, 323 and 379 IPC was registered at the Police Station, Jobner. 3. A question was put in the Raj. Legislative Assembly by one Mahavir Prasad, MLA on September 6, 1991 in respect of the Aforesaid incident. It will appear that after investigation so far as the case at Jobner Police Station (FIR No. 56/91) is concerned, a Final Report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Magistrate, but it was given out that thereafter investigation was re-opened and now the charge-sheet has been filed. In so far as the case which was registered by the petitioner No. 1 on the Excise Lines is concerned, a charge-sheet was filed against Rajesh, the driver of the Van under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act and the learned Magistrate on the alleged plea of guilt of Rajesh under his judgment dated January 2, 1992 convicted him under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer two months' imprisonment. 4. When the aforesaid Assembly question was put as appears to be the practice, the factual report was sought from the District Excise Office Jaipur and an half-hour debate was thereafter fixed in the Assembly for September 19, 1991 and the Excise Minister on September 19, 1991 made a statement that she orders that Mani Ram Excise Inspector Jaipur South Circle and Nenu Ram Patrolling Officer be suspended and inquiry be made by the Collector within a period of three months and thereafter shall be re-considering on the orders of suspension. The petitioner has extracted the order dated December 28, 1991, which was sent to the Excise Commissioner directing to suspend the petitioners. It will be seen from the aforesaid extracted order that the assurance which appears to have been given by the Excise Minister in the Assembly is as under : HINDI MATTER 364595 The respondents have filed the reply and I will refer to it while dealing with the various contentions raised before me. 5. It will be seen from the aforesaid extracted order that the assurance which appears to have been given by the Excise Minister in the Assembly is as under : HINDI MATTER 364595 The respondents have filed the reply and I will refer to it while dealing with the various contentions raised before me. 5. A reading of rule 13 of the CCA Rules will go to show that not only the appointing authority, but also any authority to which it is subordinate, may place a Government servant under suspension and a Government servant can be placed under suspension also where a disciplinary enquiry against him is contemplated or is pending. We are not dealing with the case where in respect of any of the petitioners any criminal offence is in investigation or trial and the case of the respondents is that because disciplinary proceedings against both the petitioners are contemplated, each of them has been placed under suspension. Thus, a Government servant can only be placed under suspension not only when the disciplinary proceedings are pending, but also when disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated. There can be no dispute in this case that the suspension orders were issued by the Excise Commissioner because he has been directed to place the petitioners under suspension in view of the assurance given by the Excise Minister on the floor of the Assembly. A look at Order No. P. 11(33) Finance/Excise/91 dated December 28, 1991, which has been extracted by the petitioners at page 8 and the respondents have not disputed the issuance of the aforesaid order will show, that because of the fact that the Excise Minister had given assurance on September 19, 1991 in the Assembly that she is issuing suspension orders of the petitioners, the Government had directed to place the petitioners under suspension with immediate effect. The Excise Commissioner is the appointing authority, but the Excise Commissioner is subordinate to the Government and under rule 13 (1) of the CCA Rules as said earlier, even an authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate, can place a Government servant under suspension. The Excise Commissioner is the appointing authority, but the Excise Commissioner is subordinate to the Government and under rule 13 (1) of the CCA Rules as said earlier, even an authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate, can place a Government servant under suspension. The question is as to whether because the orders of suspension have not been issued by the Government and in fact they have been issued by the Excise Commissioner under the directions of the Government, can it be said that the power has not been exercised by the Excise Commissioner in accordance with rule 13 of the CCA Rules ? In our opinion the Government being the superior authority to the Excise Commissioner who is appointing authority in the case of the petitioners, it could issue suspension orders where the disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant are contemplated or pending, even if instead of issuing the suspension orders, the Government directed the appointing authority to issue the suspension order, it will amount to the order of suspension issued by the government, then no exception can be taken to it on the ground that the Excise Commissioner has not applied his mind and he has issued the suspension orders under the dictates of the government. The Government has framed Rules of Business under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and from a perusal of rule 9 of those Rules it will be dear that the Minister in charge of the department shall be responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to that department. It will further appear from rule 12 that the orders and instruments of the Government have to be signed by the Secretary, a Special Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Dy. Secretary etc. and such signatures shall be deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or instrument. In the case of M. Nagalakshmiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1973 Lab. IC 656, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with an identical question. The court was dealing with a case where the decision to suspend was taken by the Minister concerned and it was endorsed by the Chief Minister. In the case of M. Nagalakshmiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1973 Lab. IC 656, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dealing with an identical question. The court was dealing with a case where the decision to suspend was taken by the Minister concerned and it was endorsed by the Chief Minister. The court said that there were two ways open for the Government, the first to issue the order of suspension directly and serve it upon the incumbent without the intention of the Director and second is that after having taken the decision to suspend a Government servant, the Government could have asked the Director to give effect to that decision by communicating the same formally to the petitioner. In that case, it is the second of the aforesaid two ways which was adopted by the Government. The court after going through the file and being convinced that in fact and reality the order of suspension pending enquiry was passed by the Government against the petitioners, said that the order was in accordance with law. The court in para 44 of the judgment said:- "What follows therefore is that wherever there is such a provision empowering the superior authorities to give instructions or directions, the inferior authorities are bound to carry out them. Such a direction would not amount to interference in the exercise of the administrative discretion of the subordinate authority which has under the enactment a discretion to exercise." The concerned file was produced before this Court and it will appear even from the writ petition that the Excise Minister had given an assurance in the Assembly that she will place the petitioners under suspension and an enquiry will be made by the Collector within three months and then the order of suspension will be reviewed. It was under the assurance of the Excise Minister, that the Excise Commissioner issued the suspension orders. Thus, the suspension orders were issued by the Government to whom the Excise Commissioner is subordinate. So far as legality of the suspension orders is concerned, it is not open to challenge on this ground. 6. Next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there are Government instructions and under those Government instructions, it was necessary that before an order of suspension could be made there should have been a preliminary enquiry. So far as legality of the suspension orders is concerned, it is not open to challenge on this ground. 6. Next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there are Government instructions and under those Government instructions, it was necessary that before an order of suspension could be made there should have been a preliminary enquiry. It was further contended that the suspension order has serious consequences & before a Government servant is placed under suspension, there should be a preliminary enquiry and thereafter only if a prima facie case is made out for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the power of suspension should be exercised. Learned counsel referred to the guidelines issued by the Government for the suspending authorities. The guidelines have been issued vide No. D. 16633/59. F. 19(27) Apptts (A) dated March 17, 1960, and are as under:- "(B) Guidelines for Suspending Authorities:- The following Govt. Instructions should be strictly observed in all cases of suspension of Govt. employees except where the employees are placed under suspension on account of investigation or trial of any Offence : (1) Suspension should be resorted to with caution and only when one of the major penalties prescribed under the CCA Rules, 1958 is ultimately likely to be imposed on the delinquent 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 version of the delinquent employee so as to enable it 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 time Schedule." According to the learned counsel when the Government itself laid down guidelines, it must adhere to them and in the instant case such guidelines were not followed before the Minister gave the assurance in half-hour debate that she is placing the petitioners under suspension. Learned Advocate General has contended that the aforesaid guidelines so far as they are inconsistent with the main rule 13 of the CCA Rules, will have to be ignored and it is not necessary that before the power of suspension is exercised under rule 13 of the CCA Rules there must be preliminary enquiry in every case. Learned Advocate General has contended that the aforesaid guidelines so far as they are inconsistent with the main rule 13 of the CCA Rules, will have to be ignored and it is not necessary that before the power of suspension is exercised under rule 13 of the CCA Rules there must be preliminary enquiry in every case. A bare reading of the aforesaid guidelines will show that they are not applicable in so far as the suspension of a Government servant is resorted on account of any investigation or trial of any offence. They are only guidelines and obviously they have no statutory force. In the case of D.D. Suri V. A.K. Barren, 1976 SCC (L&S) 155, the Apex Court said that failure to observe all instructions contained in the various circulars of the Central Government will not invalidate or nullify the order of the suspension made under rule 7(3) of the All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. In dealing with the cases of higher officers care ought to have been taken to follow the instructions as far as possible. There are Government instructions and the same have been extracted at page 53 in law & Procedure of Disciplinary Proceedings by S.K. Dutta as amended upto 1980. It will appear from it that in case of the departmental enquiries against the Government servants under' suspension, the following time schedule has been prescribed. 1 Completion of Preliminary Enquiry and submission of its report to the Disciplinary Authority alongwith draft statement of allegations and charges. 3 Months 2 Examination of Preliminary Enquiry Report and service of charge-sheet on the delinquent. 1 Month 3 Submission of Written Statement by the delinquents Minimum 3 weeks, maximum 2 months. 4 Examination of written statements and appointment of enquiry officer. 2 months 5 Completion of Department Enquiry 3 weeks 6 Examination of Enquiry Report 2 weeks 7 Issue of Show cause notice 2 weeks 8 Submission of reply to the show cause notice by the delinquent. 3 weeks 9 Examination of reply to the show cause and issue of final orders. 1 week. Note:- In case it is difficult to adhere to the aforesaid time schedule at any particular stage in a case, approval for extension of the limit in respect of any particular stage will be obtained from the Disciplinary Authority. 3 weeks 9 Examination of reply to the show cause and issue of final orders. 1 week. Note:- In case it is difficult to adhere to the aforesaid time schedule at any particular stage in a case, approval for extension of the limit in respect of any particular stage will be obtained from the Disciplinary Authority. In the event of any similar difficulties experienced by the Disciplinary Authority, it will obtain such approval from the next higher Authority." The very fact that the aforesaid instructions/orders were issued by the Government and in the aforesaid instructions the time Schedule for completion of the preliminary enquiry and submission its report to the disciplinary authority has also been given, goes to show that even without preliminary enquiry the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated & the Government servant can be placed under suspension. In my opinion, under rule 13(1) of the CCA Rules, there may be cases where there may need not be any necessity of a preliminary enquiry and in such a case on objective examination of the material the disciplinary authority may come to the conclusion that the disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against the Government servant, therefore, it may also place a government, servant under suspension immediately in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, there may be a case for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but still some preliminary enquiry may be necessary and in my opinion even in such a case if the competent Authority is, on the objective assessment of the material, of the opinion that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated the Government servant can be placed under suspension. The use of different expression, namely 'is pending' or 'contemplated' in rule 13(1) (a) of the CCA Rules, in my opinion will go to show that both the expressions cannot mean the same thing, and depending on the facts of each case, if the disciplinary proceedings are even contemplated, a Government servant can be placed under suspension. In the aforesaid rule 13(1) (a) of the CCA Rules, if the disciplinary proceedings are pending, one could be placed under suspension and the disciplinary proceedings can be said to be pending when the charge-sheet is served on the delinquent employee. In the aforesaid rule 13(1) (a) of the CCA Rules, if the disciplinary proceedings are pending, one could be placed under suspension and the disciplinary proceedings can be said to be pending when the charge-sheet is served on the delinquent employee. Under rule 13 (1) (a) a power is vested in the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate to place a Government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated and even in a case where a prelimary enquiry may be thought necessary, it can be said that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated and the Government servant can be placed under suspension. As said earlier, the various Government instructions or guidelines have no statutory force and merely because such instructions have not been followed, if power to suspend a Government servant has been exercised under rule 13(1) (a) objectively after perusal of record and with due care and caution, and I may say that such a power should be exercised with due care and caution because as said earlier, so far as a Government servant is concerned, suspension has serious consequences, it cannot be said that the power has been exercised contrary to rules. In the case of State of UP v. Jai Singh, 1977 Lab. IC. 73 (FB), a five Judges Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court was considering the question as to whether under rule 49-A of UP Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules (for short, the UP Rules) suspension pending inquiry can be ordered at any stage prior to or after the framing of the charges. The court was also considering the question as to what is the effect of the instructions of the Government ? In majority judgment para 35 the court said that : "It is thus clear that in law administrative instructions cannot supersede or amend the Rules or whittle down or enlarge their ambit and scope. In the present case, the instruction, when it says that suspension should immediately precede the framing and service of the charges, has the effect of repealing or nullifying the phrase 'inquiry is contemplated' occurring in the Rules. It is clearly inconsistent with the Rules. It does not fill up any gaps in the Rules. It will hence be ineffective. In the present case, the instruction, when it says that suspension should immediately precede the framing and service of the charges, has the effect of repealing or nullifying the phrase 'inquiry is contemplated' occurring in the Rules. It is clearly inconsistent with the Rules. It does not fill up any gaps in the Rules. It will hence be ineffective. If in a particular case the power of suspension is exercised prior to the framing of charges, the order of suspension cannot be held illegal and quashed on the ground that it was passed in contravention of the administrative instruction. In other words, the administrative instruction being inconsistent with the statutory rule, is void and unenforceable." In the aforesaid case of Jai Singh, the Court in para 30 while dealing with the word 'contemplated' said : "In this view the word 'contemplated' occurring in the phrase 'inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding' must refer to a stage earlier than whence the inquiry is proceeding. The term contemplated means 'to have in view', expected, to take into account as a contingency. A person can have an inquiry in view or expect an inquiry before he decided to hold it. This also corroborates the interpretation that the word 'contemplated' occurring in the phrase 'inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding' points to a stage when the enquiry is expected; that is, prior to the taking of the decision to hold the inquiry". In para 31 the court said that the question as to when is an inquiry in view or expected is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each case. In law such an expectation an happen on receipt of information of commission of misconduct or during or after a preliminary inquiry. Therefore, if there is expectation of an inquiry it can be said that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated within the meaning of rule 13(a) (a) of the CCA Rules. Therefore, as said earlier, it is always not necessary that the preliminary inquiry must precedt the suspension, though it should only be resorted to when there is chance of infliction of major penalty on the delinquent under rule 14 of the CCA Rules the material available which is to be examined objectively the competent authority can be said to be satisfied or could be satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the Government servant. In the case of S. B. Mathur v. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 34, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the administrative instructions which are in conflict of the rules cannot over-ride the rules. 7. I am therefore of the opinion that merely because the Government instructions referred to above were not followed and no preliminary enquiry was held, it cannot be said that the orders of suspension are illegal or are not in accordance with rule 13 of the CCA Rules. I will presently deal with the question as to whether there was any material on which there could be objective satisfaction of the Minister to order suspension and whether the suspension has been ordered on any objective satisfaction of the Minister ? 8. It has already been said in the earlier part of this order that even as per the case of the respondents the suspension of both the petitioners was ordered by the Government because the Minister had given an assurance in the Assembly. In may opinion, merely because some assurance has been given in the Assembly that a Government servant shall be suspended or dismissed, such a Government servant should not be and cannot be suspended or dismissed and the suspension or dismissal can only be in accordance with rules. Even the suspension cannot be ordered and should not be ordered unless the case falls under rule 13 of the CCA Rules or atleast disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. I have already given the facts of this case, and it may be that the two cases, one registered at Police Station Jobner and the other in Excise Lines South Circle Jaipur may or may not be the result of rivalry in the liquor contractors of Jaipur group of shops of whom Tola Ram prima facie appears to be a person and the liquor of groups of Jaipur where Jobner falls. I express no opinion which of the two cases is or may be correct but the way Tola Ram produced the Van allegedly containing bags of country liquor is highly suspicious. I express no opinion which of the two cases is or may be correct but the way Tola Ram produced the Van allegedly containing bags of country liquor is highly suspicious. Despite the fact that on the plea of guilt of Rajesh, the man who is said to have been the driver of the Maruti Van, he was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate till rising of the court and fine, I will not approve the conduct of the Magistrate when more than 240 bottles of country liquor without permit or authority were allegedly in possession of the accused. I am not sitting in appeal or revision against the order of the Magistrate, but as said earlier the way he dealt with the case & the circumstances of the case a serious doubt on his conduct. For the disposal of this case at any rate it can be said that in the case under the Excise Act, Rajesh, the driver of the Maruti Van was challaned, convicted under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act and was sentenced and as said earlier, I will not go into the propriety or otherwise of the order of the learned Magistrate. No step appears to have been taken to file an appeal/revision against the judgment of the learned Magistrate convicting and sentencing Rajesh for an offence under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act. The case of the respondents appears to be that the report which was lodged by Tola Ram in the Excise Lines, Jaipur South, and the Maruti Van was produced alongwith liquor- bottles, was a false report and the petitioners are said to have been party to the lodging of the false report in order to help the liquor contractors of Jaipur group of shops. When the orders of suspension were issued on January 7, 1992, the order of the learned Magistrate having been made on January 2, 1992, was already there. It does not appear to have been considered by the Excise Commissioner, no doubt the said order was not there on September 19, 1991 Minister gave assurance in the Assembly, nor when the Government issued the directions on December 28, 1991 to the Excise Commissioner to place the petitioners under suspension because the Minister has given such an assurance on September 19, 1991 in the Assembly. Even the assurance given by the Minister will show that it did not contain that any disciplinary proceedings under the CCA Rules were contemplated and all that was said is that she was placing the petitioners under suspension and ordering the enquiry to be made by the Collector, Jaipur and then to review the orders of suspension after three months. It does not appear either from a perusal of the file which has been placed before me or from the assurance given by the Minister in the Assembly that at that point of time a decision was ever taken that the disciplinary proceedings under rule 16 of CCA Rules are contemplated against the petitioner. There has been no material on which such a decision could be taken and the report which was furnished by the Distt. Excise Officer to the Minister also does not contain any material on which such subjective satisfaction of the Minister that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or the Minister could take a decision that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Even the Addl. Collector who made the enquiry had given his report and there was nothing even in that report against the petitioners or that the case which was registered in the excise lines was a false case. I have already said earlier that the decision to suspend a Government servant must be taken with due care and caution and not in a routine and only in cases where the Government servant is likely to be penalised with a major penalty under rule 14 of the CCA Rules. From the material placed it cannot be said that at any point of time before or when giving the assurance in the Assembly or even upto 28th December, 1991, when the Government directed the Excise Commissioner to suspend the petitioners, the Excise Minister even took a decision to initiate an inquiry under rule 16 of the CCA Rules. There was no material even in the reports of the District Excise Officer or the Excise Commissioner. The Minister gave an assurance to get an enquiry from the Collector and to suspend the petitioners. On the facts, therefore, it cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings at that stage were or even could be contemplated. There was no material even in the reports of the District Excise Officer or the Excise Commissioner. The Minister gave an assurance to get an enquiry from the Collector and to suspend the petitioners. On the facts, therefore, it cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings at that stage were or even could be contemplated. In the present case, merely because the Minister gave an assurance in the Assembly that she is suspending the petitioners, as said earlier there was no material on which objective satisfaction of the Minister could be based. The Government could not have directed the placing of the petitioners in suspension. Therefore, the order dated December 28, 1991 of the Government and the orders dated January 7, 1992 of the Excise Commissioner are not proper and legal. In placing the petitioners under suspension no care appears to have been taken and at any rate there is no justification for continuing the suspension of the petitioners after the report of the Additional Collector. 9. Consequently, I hereby allow this writ petition and revoke the suspension orders dated January 7, 1992, in respect of each of the petitioners, with immediate effect. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******