JUDGMENT 1. - As common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In contemplation of joint enquiry contemplated under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1954 (for short the Rules), all the petitioners came to be suspended under Rule 13 of the Rules. The said suspension orders have been called in question in all these writ petitions by the petitioners. 3. I now proceed to discuss the facts of individual cases. (i) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3217/1997, the petitioner Shyam Singh Rajpurohit was assigned the duties of Land Acquisition Officer, Bisalpur Project at Deoli (Tonk). He performed the duties on the said post between the period of his posting i.e. Jan. 19, 1991 till Sept. 2, 1993. He was thereafter transferred as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bheem, District Rajsamand. After two more transfers he was posted as Additional Collector, Pratapgarh Distt. Chhitorgarh. It is contended that he was suspended vide order dated May 20, 1997 under Rule 13 of the Rules. The. contention of the petitioner is that while working as Land Acquisition Officer, he performed the duties which were of quasi judicial nature and he decided the matters strictly in accordance with law and awards passed by him were sent to the Collector and the State Government for approval. The awards were approved finally and compensation was paid to the concerned land owner. The petitioner performed his duties with utmost devotion and sincerity and he disbursed more than 20 crores rupees among the persons whose land was acquired by the Government spreading in 16 villages and for which about 8 to 10,000 of claim files were there. According to section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, each and every action performed by the Land Acquisition Officer is thereafter approved by the District Collector and thereafter the final decision is taken by the Government. The petitioner thus, could not have committed any illegality or negligence, which is not in the knowledge of the District Collector or the State Government. The petitioner thus, could not have committed any illegality or negligence, which is not in the knowledge of the District Collector or the State Government. It is further contended that the persons who have been suspended together with the petitioner by the impugned common order dated May 20, 1997 were one of the interested parties in the proceedings before the petitioner performing his duties as Land Acquisition Officer in the Bisalpur Project Deoli. The duties of these seven persons were to prepare a technical report, which spell out the measurement of land and also the estimated cost of the building, if any existed on the acquired land. On the basis of the technical report prepared by these persons estimated value of the acquired property was estimated. The petitioner performed his duties as quasi judicial nature had just added by the technical report submitted before him. No objection or explanation was ever sought by the District Collector as regards the awards given by the petitioner in the capacity of Land Acquisition Officer and as no objection or complaint was ever filed by the Irrigation Department or by the persons whose land was acquired, the petitioner was given promotion to the Senior Scale of RAS thereafter. The service record of the petitioner is absolutely clean and unblamished and no adverse remarks was ever communicated to him. After almost four years since the petitioner last performed his duties as Land Acquisition Officer that the impugned order of suspension has been passed against him. The impugned suspension order is against the circulars issued by the State of Rajasthan and it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order of suspension has been passed without application of mind. (ii) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3332/1997, the petitioner S.K. Bakliwal, has also assailed the order dated May 21, 1997 passed in pursuance of Rule 13 of the Rules, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner is regularly promoted Superintending Engineer of the year 1991-92 and at the relevant time he was posted as Superintending Engineer Bisalpur Project Canal Circle, Bisalpur, District Tonk and worked there from 1.12.91 to 21.6.96. Apart from the construction work of the canal, the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Rehabilitation and Compensation. In all 84 technical officers/Engineers were working under the petitioner. The said divisions were named as Rehabilitation Divisions. Apart from the construction work of the canal, the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Rehabilitation and Compensation. In all 84 technical officers/Engineers were working under the petitioner. The said divisions were named as Rehabilitation Divisions. At the time of joining as Superintending Engineer, acquisition proceedings for 21836 Hectares of Land as well as award of compensation were going on and the valuation statements of properties were prepared and filed by the concerned Assistant Engineer and no complaint was received by the petitioner. As per the practice, the Junior Engineer had to conduct survey with subordinate staff and after taking measurement of the property, the report was to be submitted to the concerned Assistant Engineer incharge. The property estimate was to be prepared by the Assistant Engineer as per the norms of the basic schedule of rates and the valuation statement was to be forwarded to the Land Acquisition Officer for determination of the compensation. The said practice was followed by the petitioner and no explanation was ever called from him by the higher authorities. The work performed by the petitioner was as per the practice and norms prescribed by the department. After determination of the compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, the amount was disbursed as per the directions of the Land Acquisition Officer. In the month of June, 1996 the petitioner was transferred from Bisalpur Project to the office of the Chief Engineer Irrigation on the post of Superintending Engineer and Technical Assistant (Chambal). On May 21, 1997 all of a sudden the petitioner along with 7 other Engineers and Land Acquisition Officer and one Tehsildar, were suspended. Almost same number of Engineers were suspended by another order dated May 21, 1997. The suspension order came to be passed in contemplation of joint enquiry against the petitioner along with other persons. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned suspension order is against the principles of natural justice and it has been passed without application of mind. As the petitioner was not performing the job of valuation of the property and the same was made by the sub-ordinates i.e. Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. As the petitioner was not performing the job of valuation of the property and the same was made by the sub-ordinates i.e. Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (iii) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3476/97, the petitioner A.N. Chhabra was posted as Executive Engineer at Bisalpur Project from 6.3.1993 to 30.6.95. Thereafter has was transferred vide order dated 30th June, 1995 to Irrigation Division Baran. The petitioner received a letter dated 19th June, 1996 wherein he was asked to present himself before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer and Chief Engineer Irrigation at Bisalpur Guest House on June 25, 1996 for submitting explanation for the irregularities committed in disbursing compensation for specifically the properties pointed at S.No. 12 and 22 of Bisalpur Village and at S. No. 5 & 9 of Village Dalwasa. The petitioner appeared before the said authorities on June 25, 1996 and submitted his explanation. The petitioner submitted detailed reply in writing on July 31, 1996. All of a sudden while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Baran, he was served with the order of suspension dated May 21, 1997 along with 7 other Engineers in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 4 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that even if any error in valuation of the property existed then also the petitioner canot be held responsible for the same as the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3409/1997, the petitioner G.D. Sharma, seeks to challenge the order dated May 20, 1997 whereby he was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry. The petitioner is a regularly promoted Executive Engineer of the year 1991-92 and at the relevant time he was posted as Executive Engineer, Bisalpur Project Rehabilitation Division, Bisalpur and worked there from 25.2.1992 to 5.3.1993. The petitioner was entrusted with the work of rehabilitation and compensation. The petitioner is a regularly promoted Executive Engineer of the year 1991-92 and at the relevant time he was posted as Executive Engineer, Bisalpur Project Rehabilitation Division, Bisalpur and worked there from 25.2.1992 to 5.3.1993. The petitioner was entrusted with the work of rehabilitation and compensation. There were Four Sub Division headed by the Assistant Engineer and in each of the Sub Division there were four Junior Engineers. Thus in all 20 technical officers/Engineers were working under the petitioner. At the time of joining the post as Executive Engineer by the petitioner the acquisition proceedings for 21836 Hectares of land as well as award of compensation were going on and the valuation statements of properties were going on and the valuation statements of properties were prepared and filed by the concerned Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer and no complaint was received by the petitioner. As per the practice, the Junior Engineer was to conduct survey with subordinate staff and after taking measurement of the property, the report was to be submitted to the Assistant Engineer incharge. The property estimate was to be prepared by the Assistant Engineer as per the norms of the basic schedule of rates and the valuation statement was to be forwarded to the Land Acquisition Officer for determination of the compensation. The work performed by the petitioner was as per the practice and norms prescribed by the department. After determination of the compensation, the amount was to be disbursed as per the directions of the Land Acquisition Officer. In the month of March, 1993, the petitioner was transferred from Bisalpur Project to the office of the Chief Engineer Irrigation Design and Research, Jaipur on the post of Executive Engineer and thereafter the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Chauli Irrigation Project, Jhalawar. All of a sudden while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer and Technical Assistant to the Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation Zone, Kota the petitioner received the order of suspension dated 20.5.1997 along with five other Engineers and the Land Acquisition Officer Shri Shyam Singh Rajpurohit. Almost same number of Engineers were suspended by the another order dated dated May 21, 1997. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the order has been passed without application of mind. Almost same number of Engineers were suspended by the another order dated dated May 21, 1997. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the order has been passed without application of mind. (v) In S.B. Special Writ Petition No. 3346/1997, the petitioner Jitendra Kothari has called in question the order dated May 20, 1997 whereby he was placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was promoted as Superintending Engineer in the Department of Irrigation on 29.9.1995 and was posted at the Dam Circle, Bisalpur Project, Deoli. The petitioner was given the additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer, Rehabilitation Division Bisalpur Division Deoli from time to time during the period of his posting. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred from Deoli and posted as Superintending Engineer CAD, Bikaner/Jaisalmer vide order dated June 13, 1996 and thereafter he was posted as Superintending Engineer C.A.D. Kota. some time in March, 1997. The charge of Executive Engineer in respect of house/properties of oustees in the submergence of the Bisalpur Dam was also with the petitioner. The procedure for the valuation of the properties of the oustees as aforesaid was that the payment for the land was to be made by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the rates furnished and available with the Land Acquisition Officer from time to time. The petitioner had no concerned whatsoever even remotely with the computation of the compensation in respect of the land. The valuation of the properties so acquired was also to be carried out and for this purpose the technical staff of the Rehabilitation Division of Bisalpur Project was required to discharge its responsibility. The method for the valuation of the properties was at the rates as fixed by the department of Irrigation in terms of the Basic Schedule of Rates. In terms of the procedure adopted and approved by the State Government for valuation of the properties, the Junior Engineer concerned required to undertake measurement with the help of the subordinate staff of the houses/properties falling within the submergence area to be valued. On the basis of these measurements, it was the job responsibility of the Junior Engineer to prepare estimates and submit the same for checking and scrutiny by the Assistant Engineer concerned. On the basis of these measurements, it was the job responsibility of the Junior Engineer to prepare estimates and submit the same for checking and scrutiny by the Assistant Engineer concerned. Vide letter dated 19.6.1996 the Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project, Jaipur addressed a communication to the petitioner and the petitioner was required to present himself on 25th June, 1996 at the Bisalpur Project Colony's Guest House at Deoli before the Divisional Commissioner and the Chief Engineer to furnish his clarification. The petitioner appeared on 25th June, 1996 at the Guest House of Bisaipur but the authorities were not available there. The petitioner thereafter sent written reply to the allegations on July 28, 1996. In the said reply the petitioner emphatically disputed and denied each of the allegations and in fact pointed out the absurdity of the allegations against him which form the record of the Bisaipur Project itself were not made out on the face of it. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Various factual details have been given in the writ petition. (vi) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3502/1997 petitioner N.R. Varanjani seeks to assail the order dated May 21, 1997 passed under Rule 13 of the Rules whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1990 in Bisalpur Sub Division, Todarai Singh in the Compensation Division of Bisalpur Project, Deoli. During his posting as Assistant Engineer aforesaid, the petitioner was required to assist in the compensation work, more particularly in the valuation of the houses of the persons to be ousted in the submergence area. The physical measurement of the houses of the oustees was made and estimates were prepared on the basis of Basic Schedules of Rates. The petitioner as Assistant Engineer was required to submit such estimates prepared by the Junior Engineer to the sanctioning authority depending upon the valuation of the houses involved. The sanctioning authority for houses upto As. 10,000/- was the Executive Engineer and for the houses upto As. 30,000/- was the Superintending Engineer and for more than As. 30,000/- was the Chief Engineer Bisalpur Project. The petitioner was transferred from Bisalpur Project Deoli to Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Bikaner in April 1992. The sanctioning authority for houses upto As. 10,000/- was the Executive Engineer and for the houses upto As. 30,000/- was the Superintending Engineer and for more than As. 30,000/- was the Chief Engineer Bisalpur Project. The petitioner was transferred from Bisalpur Project Deoli to Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Bikaner in April 1992. The petitioner thereafter came to be promoted as Executive Engineer on March 7, 1996. The case of the petitioner is that the suspension order whereby he was placed under suspension is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and has been passed without application of mind. (vii) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3480/1997 the petitioner Amarjeet Singh, assailed the order dated May 20, 1997 whereby he was placed under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rules in contemplation of departmental enquiry. The petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division Kekri, Ajmer. The case of the petitioner is that suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has been passed without application of mind and without affording opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner. (viii) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3479/97 the petitioner Dharmendra Kaushik seeks to challenge the order dated May 20, 1997 whereby he was placed under suspension. The petitioner is presently posted as Junior Engineer Irrigation Sub Division Irrigation Sub-division Masuda, Ajmer. (ix) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3463/97 the petitioner Lakhma Ram seeks to challenge the order dated May 20, 1997. Presently the petitioner is posted as LDC in the office of Irrigation Rehabilitation Department Bisalpur, Tonk. The case of the petitioner is that his work was to maintain the office files and put up before the Land Acquisition Officer. His contention is that the suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has been passed without application of mind. (x) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3462/1997 the petitioner Kishan Bihari seeks to challenge the suspension order dated May 20, 1997. The petitioner is presently posted as Patwari in the office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Dausa. The work of the petitioner was to verify the items of the technical reports for example number of trees, houses, wells and measurement of land as per revenue record and to submit the report to the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner is presently posted as Patwari in the office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Dausa. The work of the petitioner was to verify the items of the technical reports for example number of trees, houses, wells and measurement of land as per revenue record and to submit the report to the Land Acquisition Officer. His contention is that the suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and has been passed without application of mind. (xi) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4130/1997 the petitioner Mahesh Chand Gupta seeks to challenge the order dated May 21, 1997 whereby he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner is presently posted as Junior Engineer in the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur. At the relevant time the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in Bisalpur Project and his work was to prepare the estimate of Kachha and Pucca Houses, well and trees on the basis of Basic Schedule Rates which was fixed by the Committee. The work of the petitioner was to refer the matter and supply their report to the higher authority and the higher authority inspect the same and send to the Land Acquisition Officer. His main contention is that the suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and has been passed without application of mind. (xii) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3461/1997, the petitioner Chandra Shekhar Sharma, seeks to the challenge the suspension order dated May 21, 1997. The petitioner is presently posted as Patwari in the office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Dausa. The petitioner at the relevant time posted as Patwari in Bisalpur Project and his work was to verify the itmes of the technical reports for example number of threes, houses, wells and measurement of land as per revenue record and to submit the report the Land Acquisition Officer. His main contention is that the suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and has been passed without application of mind. (xiii) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3482/97, the petitioner Radhey Shyam Hayarn seeks to challenge the order dated May 21, 1997 whereby he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner is presently posted as Junior Engineer in the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur. (xiii) In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3482/97, the petitioner Radhey Shyam Hayarn seeks to challenge the order dated May 21, 1997 whereby he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner is presently posted as Junior Engineer in the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur. At the relevant time the petitioner was Junior Engineer in Bisalpur Project and his work was to prepare the estimate of Kachha and Pucca Houses, well and trees on the basis of Basic Schedule Rate which was fixed by the Committee. The work of the petitioner was to refer the matter and supply their report to the higher authority and the higher authority inspect the same and send to the Land Acquisition Officer. His main contention is that the suspension order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and has been passed without application of mind. Reply to The Show Cause Notice by the Respondent. 4. Show cause notices were issued to the respondents and they submitted reply in some of the writ petitions and prayed that the said reply may be treated as reply to all the writ petitions. It has been averred in the reply submitted by the respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3217/1997 that all the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing review against the order of suspension before the Governor. The respondents have further pleaded that scope of interference in the order of suspension is extremely limited. The order of suspension can only be interfered with if the authority issuing the order has no jurisdiction or it has been issued malafidely. The appreciation of facts is not emerged even at the stage of challenging the charge sheet not to say at the stage where the order of suspension is challenged. The petitioners have not been able to show that the authorities issuing the order has no jurisdiction or that any particular authority had malafide in issuing the same. The impugned orders of suspension have been issued in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules in exercise of statutory powers and after due application of mind after serious irregularities came to the notice of the Government in relation to Bishalpur Project which consists of construction of Dam Canals and other ancillary work including rehabilitation of residents of large number of villages affected by Dam Canal construction etc. and assessment and payment of compensation to them. The preliminary enquiry was conducted through Smt. Aditi Mehta Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer and Shri B.R. Madhok, the then Chief Engineer of Bishalpur Project, it was prima-facie found that there are financial irregularities to the extent of about rupees four crores which needs further and full enquiry and the employees found guilty are required to be punished in the interest of administration. The respondents have further averred that it is incorrect to say that the petitioners had no role to play. The Land Acquisition Officer had acted collusively without verification and examination of the correct assessment and claims of the respective persons. The Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Engineers and other officials are responsible for the financial irregularities and the Superintending Engineer or the Executive Engineer cannot say that they are responsible because the actual work has been done by the Junior Engineers and the Assistant Engineers. The Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer had not discharged their official duties and have verified and forwarded the estimate without verification and examination. In the first instance the District Collector submitted brief report wherein he opined that financial irregularities to large extent seems to have been committed. The enquiry of District Collector was however confined to Revenue Officers. The second report was mainly confined to the Revenue Officers, however it was indicated that the officers of the Engineering Services are also involved. Since the report was incomplete in several aspect the Government appointed the Divisional Commissioner Smt. Aditi Mehta and Shri Madhok, Chief Engineer Bisalpur Project as a committee to give a detailed preliminary enquiry report vide order dated 17th July, 1995. Accordingly a detailed examination was made by the committee and all the concerned officers were sent letters by registered post to have their say during the preliminary enquiry. They were also requested to be personally present on 25.6.1996 in the Guest House of Bisalpur Project. All the officers who were present were asked by the committee to give their submissions in writing and some of them made submissions in writing and others did not. Thus it is wrong on the part of the petitioners to say that they were not associated with the preliminary enquiry and they had no opportunity to have their say before the committee. The report of the committee was submitted on 28th Nov. Thus it is wrong on the part of the petitioners to say that they were not associated with the preliminary enquiry and they had no opportunity to have their say before the committee. The report of the committee was submitted on 28th Nov. 1996, which was examined in Irrigation Department as well as Department of Personnel at various levels. Thorough examination and analysis was made on the basis of report. Villagewise and officerwise charge was made prepared relating to irregularities and approximate amount involved in it. After detailed exercise the Government took a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against 17 officers including the Land Acquisition Officer. The disciplinary proceedings are contemplated to ensure that the concerned officers are not in a position to influence the disciplinary proceedings in any manner and should not have excess to the record and witnesses, it was decided to place 17 officers under suspension. Charge sheets have also been issued to them on August 5, 1997. Even intentional and reckless exercise of quasi judicial powers are amenable to judicial review and the Land Acquisition Officer, who is an officer of Raj. Administrative Service cannot say that no enquiry could be initiated against him. It is wrong to say that the impugned orders whereby the petitioners have been placed under suspension are arbitrary orders or issued without application of mind.RIVAL SUBMISSIONS: 5. Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners S.K. Bakliwal and A.N. Chhabra vehemently contended that the impugned suspension order has been passed without associating the petitioners in the third preliminary enquiry ignoring the fact that nothing was found against them in the earlier two exparte preliminary enquiries, without seeking any explanation from them either before or during and after submission of the report of preliminary enquiry and further without examining the relevant record with.reference to the role in the capacities of posts held by them. Therefore the impugned order of suspension clearly reveals non-application of mind and it deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The impugned order has been passed in highly unreasonable and arbitrary manner after transfer of the petitioners from the Bisalpur Project without examining the aims and objects of suspension. Apart from this, the respondents have not examined the fact that the petitioners were not to perform the job of valuation of the properties and the same was made by the subordinate staff. Apart from this, the respondents have not examined the fact that the petitioners were not to perform the job of valuation of the properties and the same was made by the subordinate staff. The petitioner cannot be held responsible as the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after considering all the facts and circumstances. Mr. Asopa, learned counsel further contended that various circulars issued by the State Government on March 25, 1958, March 17, 1960, March 16, 1966 and April 27, 1970 have not been looked into by the respondents at all. Placing reliance on Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking New Delhi v. G.P Satsangi and another (1984 Lab. I.C. 54) Mr. Asopa, learned counsel canvassed that short of dismissal, the worst that can be fall an employee is an order of suspension. 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 the appliance of mind. Mr. Asopa, learned counsel has further placed reliance on Ashok Gaur v. State of Rajasthan (1987 RLR II Parg page 63) Dr. B.N. Bohra v. State of Rajasthan (1991 RLR Part I page 383) , State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (JT 1994(2) SC 51). 6. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner S.S. Rajpurohit, also invited my attention to the various circulars issued by the State of Rajasthan and contended that no complaint from any quarter was made against the petitioner. Mr. Rastogi learned counsel canvassed that the petitioner being Land Acquisition Officer, his orders were subject to scrutiny. At the time of suspension the petitioner was posted at Chittorgarh and no useful purpose has been served in suspending the petitioner. Mr. Rastogi further urged that time schedule for completing departmental enquiries against Government officials under suspension has been prescribed by the Government. According to' Notification dated March 26, 1996, in case of departmental enquiries against Government officials under suspension the following time schedule has been prescribed 1. Completion of preliminary enquiry and submission of its report to the Disciplinary authority along with draft statements of allegations and charges-3 months. 2. Examination of Preliminary enquiry Report and service of charge sheet on the delinquents-1 month. 3. Completion of preliminary enquiry and submission of its report to the Disciplinary authority along with draft statements of allegations and charges-3 months. 2. Examination of Preliminary enquiry Report and service of charge sheet on the delinquents-1 month. 3. Submission of written statements by the delinquents-Minimum 3 weeks maximum 2 months. 4. Examination of written statements and appointment of enquiry officer-2 months. 5. Completion of Departmental enquiry-3 weeks 6. Examination of Enquiry report and the final order-2 weeks. 7. There is a note appended to this Schedule and it has been mentioned that 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. 8. Contention of Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel is that the aforesaid time schedule has not been followed by the respondents. The departmental enquiry is yet to be completed, whereas the petitioner has been placed under suspension since May 21, 1997 and after lapse of 8 months the suspension order ought to have revoked. 9. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jitendra Kothari and N.R. Varanjani invited my attention towards the charge sheet issued to the petitioners and contended that the petitioners cannot be held responsible as the Land Acquisition Officer passed the final award. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel further canvassed that the petitioners could not have been placed under suspension as they are not at all related with the so called irregularities. The arguments which have been incorporated in the writ petition have also orally advanced by Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. Mr. Bajrang Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner G.D. Sharma, contended that even assuming for the sake of arguments, though not admitted, the error of judgment in classifying properties or valuation of the properties committed by the subordinate staff, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. The error of judgment cannot be termed as misconduct and the same could not be and should not be a basis for contemplation or initiation of inquiry. The error of judgment cannot be termed as misconduct and the same could not be and should not be a basis for contemplation or initiation of inquiry. Therefore the suspension order has been passed in contravention of the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Rules. Reliance was placed on Smt. Kamla Tripathi v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 387/91, decided on May 20, 1997. 11. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the impugned suspension orders have been passed without application of mind and the same are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Sharma, urged that after the Land Acquisition Officer passed the awards the petitioners could not have been held responsible. 12. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the impugned orders of suspension have been passed after due application of mind. The details given in the reply of the respondents have been read over before me and it was contended that interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and the facts placed before this court cannot be appreciated. It was further contended by Mr. Maloo that preliminary enquiry was conducted through Divisional Commissioner Ajmer and Chief Engineer Bisalpur Project and it was prima facie found that there were financial irregularities to the extent of four crores rupees and the employees found guilty are required to be punished in the interest of administration. Mr. Maloo placed reliance on Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan ( AIR 1993 SC 1478 ) , Union of India and others v. Upendra Singh (1994 (1) SLR 831) and contended that if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his quasi judicial duty, the officer can be placed under suspension. Further reliance was placed on UP Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan and another (1993) 40 SLR page 5430 , State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (JT 1994(2) SC 51) and it was contended that ordinarily the court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed malafide and without therebeing even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employees with the misconduct in question. v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (JT 1994(2) SC 51) and it was contended that ordinarily the court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed malafide and without therebeing even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employees with the misconduct in question. It was argued that in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utapadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan (supra), the High Court set-aside the order of suspension but the Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court and revived the order of suspension. 13. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record as well as the authorities cited before me. 14. The term `suspension' has not been defined in the Rules, but according to Oxford Dictionary it means "the action of suspending or condition of being suspended; the action of debarring or state of being debarred especially for a time form a function or privilege; temporary deprivation of one's office of position". A master can, subject to the contract of service, ask his servant not to render any service without assigning any reason but this would not be by way of punishment and the master would have to pay the servant his full wages or remuneration in such an event. 15. In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 328 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the term 'suspension'. It was laid down thus "An order of suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service under the government. He continues to be a member of the service inspite of the order of suspension. The real effect of the order of suspension as explained by this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India ( AIR 1958 SC 300 ) is that he continues to be a member of the Government service but is not permitted to work and further during the period of suspension he is paid only some allowance-generally called subsistence allowance-which is normally less than the salary instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not been suspended. There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects a Government servant injuriously. The very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. There is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects a Government servant injuriously. The very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. The dictionary meaning of the word 'subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II at p. 2171 is "to remain alive as on food; to continue to exist". "Subsistence" means-means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. Although suspension is not one of the punishments specified in Rule 11 of the Rules, an order of suspension is not be lightly passed against the Government servant." 16. This Court in Dr. B.M. Bohra v. State of Rajasthan ( 1991(1) RLR 383 ) had considered all the four circulars issued from time to time by the State of Rajasthan in connection with the suspension of Government employee and it was observed in para 32 thus ''The guide-lines 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 guidelinges 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. 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 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. (Emphasis supplied) 17. At this juncture it will be useful to consider sub-rule (1)(5) of rule 13 of the Rules which provides thus "Rule 13 Suspension- (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension. (a) where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial : Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made. 2. xxxx 3. xxxxxx 4. xxxxx 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 by any authority to which that authority is subordinate." 18. 2. xxxx 3. xxxxxx 4. xxxxx 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 by any authority to which that authority is subordinate." 18. The Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Gaur v. State of Rajasthan and another (RLR 1987 (II) page 63) had occasion to interpret Rule 13 of the Rules and it was held that "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. Further when an order of suspension is passed, it is again a duty of the Appointing Authority to pass an order of suspension to see whether it should be revoked or not." 19. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking New Delhi v. G. P. Satsangi and another (1984 Lab. I.C. 54) indicated thus "Short of dismissal, the worst that can be fall an employee is an order of suspension. It is rendered all the more grave in the context of delays and red-tapism 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 non-availability 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 the appliance of mind." 20. But according to the views expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (JT 1994(2) SC 51) , it was held thus "Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (JT 1994(2) SC 51) , it was held thus "Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending enquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the enquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or enquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by malfides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. 21. Their Lordships further observed that "Normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employees, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee." 22. Again in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others v. Sanjiv Rajan (1993(4) SLR page 543) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that "ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with the ordes of suspension unless they are passed malafide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employees with the misconduct in question." 23. Admittedly in all the writ petitions, it has not been pleaded that the impugned orders of suspension were passed malafide. Admittedly in all the writ petitions, it has not been pleaded that the impugned orders of suspension were passed malafide. Only attempt has been made to establish that there is no prima facie evidence on record connecting the petitioners with the misconduct in question. I feel that any observations of mine if made, on the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners as regards the evidence on record, will prejudice or be detriminental to either of the parties for any future adjudication relating to suspension order. I refrain from expressing my view on this aspect. 24. Now I proceed to discuss the arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioner S.S. Rajpurohit, who was Land Acquisition Officer at the relevant time. It was contended that the respondents are precluded from taking any disciplinary action in regard to exercise of quasi judicial powers of the Land Acquisition Officer. The orders passed by him from time to time were subjected to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the disciplinary action could not have been against him. I am unable to agree with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. 25. In U.O.I. v. K.K. Dhawan ( AIR 1993 SC 1478 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus "The Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules even with regard to exercise of quasi judicial powers. Thus, the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases : (i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; (ii) if there is prima facia material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; (iii) if he has acted in manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant; (iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; (v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; (vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive however, small the bribe may be." 26. Again in Union of India and others v. Upendra Singh (1994(1) SLR 831) their Lordships of the Supreme Court placed reliance on K.K. Dhawan's case (supra) and observed that a disciplinary inquiry can be held even with respect to the conduct of an officer in discharge of his judicial or quasi judicial duties. 27. In my considered opinion, the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority is primarily the judge also whether circumstances warrant suspension or not. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere only if order is passed on wholly irrelevant considerations. This Court cannot go into the question whether the order of suspension was passed on proper material. Suspension of civil servant may not amount to punishment within the meaning of Article 311 of Constitution or any rules governing service conditions, even though it carries stigma with respect to concerned employee. The power to take action under Rule 13 of the Rules is made dependent on the subjective satisfaction to be arrived at by the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority regarding the necessity or the desirability to place an officer under suspension having due regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances. The High Court is not an appeal forum where the correctness of the opinion formed by the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority can be canvassed. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be freely exercised in matters of suspension pending or in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, unless an order of suspension is invalid in law either for want of competence on the part of authority passing the same or for violation of any specific rule or is malafide, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions against such order of suspension. 28. In the result, for all the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petitions, I hope and trust that the State Government will expedite the departmental enquiries. Costs easy.Writ Petitions Dismissed. *******