Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1552 (RAJ)

Pramod Ranjan v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

2011-08-01

ALOK SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.07.2011 whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension while working as A.En. (O & M), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, (AWNL), Makrana. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the month or March, 1989 on the post of Junior Engineer Grade I and until about a year ago had an unblemished record. In the year 2010, he has been put to repeated suspension and departmental enquiries. It is submitted that while he was posted as A.En., Chhoti Sadri for the period 03.11.2009 to 28.04.2010, he came to be put thorough departmental enquiry for inefficiency in discharging of his responsibilities and dereliction in duties but was however, exonerated in December, 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner again for the period of his posting at Chhoti Sadri, was charge-sheeted for will full absence but later on, he exonerated with a warning. On 26.03.2010, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for a minor punishment under Regulation 7 of the RSEB Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referee to as the Regulations of 1962). Pursuant to the said departmental proceedings, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.04.2010 but reinstated on 24.05.2010. 3. Petitioner submits that there after when he was transferred from Chhoti Sadri to Nagaur on the post of A.En. (O & M), he came to be charge-sheeted again for alleged failure to report cases of theft of electricity and for nonpayment of contractual dues to the contractors. Both the charges levelled against the petitioner once again drew upon his tenure at Chhoti Sadri. Even while, the said enquiry was pending, the petitioner again came to be charge-sheeted for a minor punishment on 18.05.2010 and was suspended on 27.07.2010 but reinstated on 21.01.2011. Now finally, the petitioner by the impugned order has been suspended on 18.07.2011 for the reason of a contemplated departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the power to suspend is being used casually and in a routine manner as it evident from repeated suspensions and reinstatement, and further that the petitioner in the instant case, has been suspended for an enquiry under Regulation 6 which pertains to minor punishment. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the power to suspend is being used casually and in a routine manner as it evident from repeated suspensions and reinstatement, and further that the petitioner in the instant case, has been suspended for an enquiry under Regulation 6 which pertains to minor punishment. Counsel submits that even while he has been reinstated in an enquiry pertaining to Regulation 7 which pertains to a major punishment he has been suspended in a enquiry to minor penalty. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Samrath Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2010 (1) WLC 562 , wherein this Court has held that suspension can be resorted to where serious allegations of misconduct are imputed or the employee is undergoing trial for the grave misconduct and where, it may be undesirable in the interest of a ran and free inquiry or the delinquent's continuation would make difficult a free investigation. Even while recognising the power of employer to suspend the employee, more so when the regulation provides, the Court has been careful to insist that in every case of suspension, its desirability is required to be examined by the competent authority by takin gin to consideration the existing facts. The Court has held that an order of suspension even though not a punishment, cannot be passed lightly or mechanically in every case of commencement of departmental enquiry. It has been further held that suspension is not required to be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that those shakes public confidence in governance while he continues to discharge public duties. 6. Counsel has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Dr. B.M. Bohra v. State of Raj., reported in 1991 (1) RLR 382 , wherein this Court has set out the manner in which power to suspend ought to be exercised. This Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that power has to be exercised sparingly and after due cadger and the competent authority must objectively apply its mind to the nature of the allegations made against the employee, their gravity & seriousness and other aspects of the matter. This Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that power has to be exercised sparingly and after due cadger and the competent authority must objectively apply its mind to the nature of the allegations made against the employee, their gravity & seriousness and other aspects of the matter. The Court has held that power to suspend cannot be exercised as a matter of course and no unfettered discretion is vested with the competent authority to pass an order of suspension of an employee according to is sweet will, whim and/or fancy. The suspension of an employee results in serious adverse consequence to him because his image is shattered in the eyes of public and the society in which he moves. The Court has held that when order of suspension is challenged and the employer is called upon to justify the order of suspension, it must now from the material on record that there has been application of mind by the competent authority to the relevant factors. The Court has further held that suspension ought to be resorted to in the case of moral turpitude or where allegations levelled are of grave misconduct or where there is a likelihood of major penalty of dismissal or removal being imposed upon the delinquent. 7. Relying upon the said authorities, the counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is evident from the narration of facts as stated in the writ petition and which are not denied by the counsel for the respondent in the reply that in the case of petitioner, power to suspend has been used routinely and the petitioner has been suspended and reinstated within no time on earlier two occasions. As far as present order of suspension dated 18.07.2011 is concerned, counsel submit that the allegations in the memorandum which has not been filed subsequent to the service of notice upon the counsel for the respondent indicate that the allegations against the petitioner are vague, without particulars and solely with the intent of putting the petitioner into difficulty. As far as present order of suspension dated 18.07.2011 is concerned, counsel submit that the allegations in the memorandum which has not been filed subsequent to the service of notice upon the counsel for the respondent indicate that the allegations against the petitioner are vague, without particulars and solely with the intent of putting the petitioner into difficulty. It has been submitted that even while petitioner's suspension has been revoked in a matter wherein he is facing departmental enquiry for a major punishment under Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1962, in this case he has been suspended in respect of an enquiry for minor misconduct covered under Regulation 6 of the Regulations of 1962 wherein there is no power to dismiss or remove him from service. 8. In reply to the writ petition, counsel for the respondent AWNL has stated that disciplinary action has been taken and the draft of charges and statement of allegations has been issued by S.E. (O & M), AWNL and further proceedings will soon follow in the departmental enquiry. It is stated that allegations and charge related to the time of the petitioner's posting at Makrana and there is strong prima facie case against the petitioner for proceeding under erstwhile R.S.E.B. (C.C.& A.) Regulation, 1962 and the allegations levelled involve "moral turpitude, grave misconduct and indiscipline" and the charges if proved, would ordinarily result in his dismissal or removal from service. Counsel for the respondent has stated that there is no prejudice to the petitioner by passing of the order of suspension and the petitioner should be required to face the departmental enquiry which the respondent AWNL will expedite to the satisfaction of this Court. 9. A bare look of the reply filed by the respondent AWNL indicates that the reply is clearly mechanical in manner. There is no charge levelled against the petitioner with regard to moral turpitude. Further, the averments with regard to 'grave misconduct' are mis-directed as the respondent AWNL has itself initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the Regulations of 1962 which relates to minor punishment and not major punishment. As far as the charge of indiscipline is concerned, it is a subject matter of enquiry and in any view of the matter, it has been treated as a minor misconduct. 10. As far as the charge of indiscipline is concerned, it is a subject matter of enquiry and in any view of the matter, it has been treated as a minor misconduct. 10. 1 have considered the matter and am of the view that in the context of the background of the repeated 'suspension on two occasions and reinstatement' by AWNL itself, more so in respect of an enquiry under Regulation 7 of the Regulation of 1962 which relates to a major penalty, the suspension in issue of the petitioner is mechanical and appears to e mere consequence of disciplinary proceeding being initiated under Regulation 6 which relates to minor penalty. I am further of the view that statement in the reply regarding "moral turpitude and grave misconduct" they are not born from the memo and mis-directed. A bare look at the memorandum issued to the petitioner indicates that there is an allegation f moral turpitude nor it is a case of grave misconduct. The departmental enquiry has been initiated and will be held with reference to Regulation 6 of the Regulations of 1962 which relates to minor misconduct. I find that the safeguards enunciated by this Court in (Samrath Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2010 (1) WLC 562 and (Dr. B.M. Bohar v. State of Raj., reported in 1991 (1) RLR 382) have not been considered by the respondent AWNL and the order of suspension is therefore vitiated. 11. For the aforesaid, I am of the view of the order dated 18.07.2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside so far as it relates to suspension of the petitioner. This Court does not deem it proper to interfere with regard to moving out of the petitioner from Makrana. The respondent AWNL will be free to post the petitioner any place outside the Makrana. It is further made clear that setting aside of the order dated 18.07.2011 will not in any way, obstruct or prejudice the holding of the departmental enquiry. The respondent AWNL is directed to conclude the departmental proceeding against the petitioner expeditiously and not later than six months from the date of certified copy of this order.The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.Petition Allowed. *******