JUDGMENT 1. - By the order dated 23.8.2010, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj placed the petitioner awaiting posting orders (APO) and fixed his Head Quarter at the Directorate, Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 2002. On 1.10.2009, a complaint was submitted by one office-bearer of Nagar Yuvak Congress, Srikaranpur to the Agriculture Marketing State Minister to the Government of Rajasthan in following terms:- " fo"k;kuqlkj fuosnu ;g gS fd Jh ujs'k dqekj L.D.C. efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx] Jh dj.kiqj esa dk;Zjr gSA ;g gekjh ikVhZ inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls vPNk O;ogkj ugha djrk gSA ifj;kstuk vUrxZr dqN vkaxu ckM+h dsUnz ( 'kgjh ) Lohd~r gq,s gS ftl gsrq gekjh dk;Zdkj.kh ds inkf/kdkjh C.D.P.O. dk;kZy; esa feyus x,s rks mDr deZpkjh us dgk fd ge okMZ lHkkvksa ds ek/;e ls dk;ZdrkZ lgkf;dk dk p;u djsaxs] geus dgk fd dqN gekjh ikVhZ ds inkf/kdkjh o dk;ZdrkZvksa ds lEcfU/k;ksa dk bl p;u izfdz;k esa fo'ks"k /;ku j[ks] mDr O;fDr us gekjh ckr dks dksbZ rotks ugha nh rFkk gekjk dksbZ Hkh lEeku ugha fd;k x;kA vr% vkt ge ikVhZ inkf/kdkjh vkils O;fDrxr HksaV dj fuosnu djrs gS fd ujs'k dqekj L.D.C. dk LFkkukUrj.k vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ p;u izfdz;k rd fdlh vU; LFkku ij djus dk Je djsaA " (emphasis supplied) 3. As per the petitioner, acting upon the complaint dated 1.10.2009, the Deputy Director (Child Development), Integrated Child Development Services, Sriganganagar posted him in the office of Deputy Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Sriganganagar. In pursuant to the order aforesaid, the petitioner was relieved on 14.10.2009. The Deputy Director (Administration), Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur under a letter dated 19.5.2010 sought reasons from the Deputy Director (Child Development), Integrated Child Development Services, Sriganganagar for keeping the petitioner awaiting posting orders in his office. However, an order dated 18.5.2010 was passed by the Deputy Director(woman and child development) Department, Sriganganagar posting the petitioner at Karanpur. The Deputy Director (Administration), Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur under a letter dated 19.5.2010 sought reasons from the Deputy Director (Child Development), Integrated Child Development Services, Sriganganagar for keeping the petitioner awaiting posting orders in his office. However, an order dated 18.5.2010 was passed by the Deputy Director(woman and child development) Department, Sriganganagar posting the petitioner at Karanpur. On being posted at Karanpur, a complaint was again made by some office-bearers of Nagar Yuvak Congress, Srikaranpur and that reads as follow:- ije vkn.kh; d~f"k foi.ku jkT; eU=h th] jktLFkku ljdkj] t;iqjA fo"k;% ujs'k dqekj d0fy0 dk LFkkukUrj.k gsrqA ekU;ojth] fo"k;kuqlkj fuosnu ;g gS fd efgyk cky fodkl esa dk;Zjr ujs'k dqekj ikVhZ inkf/kdkjh o dk;ZdrkZvksa ds dgs vuqlkj dk;Z ugha djrk gS ,oa ikVhZ dk;ZdrkZ blls [kq'k ugha gS iwoZ eas vkidks fnukad dks v/;{k uxj ;qod dkaxzsl Jh dj.kiqj us vkidks i= fy[k voxr djk;k Fkk ftldh ,sot esa vkius bldks Jh xaxkuxj dk;kZy; esa A.P.O. djok;k FkkA ysfdu vc ;g iqu% okfil C.D.P.O. dk;kZy; Jh dj.kiqj esa vk x;k gS ftlls gekjs eku lEeku dks Bsl igqaph gSA vr% vkils fuosnu ;g gS fd mDr deZpkjh dk LFkkukUrj.k ftys ls ckgj nqLFkZ LFkku ij djokus dk Je djs rkfd deZpkjh;ksa esa ikVhZ dk;ZdrkZvksa esa 'kk[k LFkkfir gks ldsA (emphasis supplied) 4. After submission of the complaint aforesaid, the order impugned was passed keeping the petitioner's head quarter at Directorate, Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts of the case clearly establishes that the petitioner is kept awaiting posting orders for extraneous consideration and not in administrative exigency. It is submitted that the respondents, as a matter of fact, are misusing their administrative authority by keeping a public servant awaiting posting orders without any just reason. 5. Per contra, as per the respondents, the petitioner was placed under awaiting posting orders as certain complaints were received against him and further an enquiry as per Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter) is under contemplation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. At the threshold, suffice it to mention that to keep a public servant awaiting posting orders is an administrative exigency and that is only for a short term just to ascertain appropriate place to post such public servant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. At the threshold, suffice it to mention that to keep a public servant awaiting posting orders is an administrative exigency and that is only for a short term just to ascertain appropriate place to post such public servant. The respondents must understand that in service jurisprudence the term awaiting posting orders is not a substitute for suspension. A public servant, if is required to be subjected by a disciplinary action, then the appropriate course is to suspended him and not to keep him awaiting posting orders. In the instant matter, the petitioner has been kept awaiting posting orders twice and no reason for that is given by the respondents in their reply. If the respondents want to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, then the appropriate course was to place him under suspension and not to keep him awaiting posting orders. It is further relevant to note that even as per respondents the disciplinary action contemplated is in relation to minor penalty only and if that is so, then even suspension is not warranted. Thus, the placement of petitioner awaiting posting orders contemplating disciplinary action is absolutely misplaced. 8. The facts advanced by the petitioner regarding recommendations made by the office bearers of a political organisation also appears to be correct. In the first complaint submitted by the office-bearer of Nagar Yuvak Congress, Srikaranpur, a request is made to post the petitioner somewhere else till completion of process of selection relating to Anganwadi Karyakarta. This assertion reflects intention of the complainant to have some interference in the process of selection. 9. Be that as it may, the petitioner who was placed awaiting posting orders at the first instance was posted to his original office with the interference of officers at Directorate level. In second complaint, allegations were again levelled and those are absolutely extraneous. The facts of the case establishes it well that the petitioner was kept awaiting posting orders just to satisfy will of a political organization. This Court highly deprecate such kind of interference by any political organization. 10. For the reasons given above, the petition for writ deserves acceptance, therefore, the same is allowed. The order dated 23.8.2010 is quashed. The respondents are directed to post the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk at the office he was already working prior to issuance of the order impugned. 10. For the reasons given above, the petition for writ deserves acceptance, therefore, the same is allowed. The order dated 23.8.2010 is quashed. The respondents are directed to post the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk at the office he was already working prior to issuance of the order impugned. A cost in a tune of Rs. 12,000/- is also required to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.Writ petition allowed. *******