JUDGMENT Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—The petitioner, a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service, is placed under suspension by order dated 6.12.2010, passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (Group-3/Inquiries), while exercising powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). 2. As per the petitioner the order aforesaid is nothing but an out come of colourable exercise of powers. It is stated that while working as Sub Divisional Officer and Executive Magistrate, Bayatu, District Barmer, the petitioner participated with “Prashashan Gaon Ke Sang” Programme, 2010 and on 20.11.2010 he sought permission from the Collector, Barmer to leave the headquarter while availing weekly off on 21.11.2010 (Sunday). On the midnight of 21.11.2010 he suffered with acute fever, thus, necessary information was given on 21.11.2010 telegraphically to the Collector, Barmer. An information was also given through SMS on the cellphone of the Collector and a request to grant leave was made. To substantiate the fact of ailment, the petitioner has placed on record a prescription slip issued by the competent medical officer working at Government Bangad Hospital, Pali. After availing sick leave the petitioner reported at the headquarter on 29.11.2010. In response to a notice dated 24.11.2010, the petitioner vide letter dated 30.11.2010 explained the circumstances compelling him to avail sick leave and the information given by him to the Collector. The respondent No.2, then by order dated 6.12.2010 suspended the petitioner, hence this petition for writ is preferred. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner discharged his duties quite efficiently, effectively and he left the headquarter only after availing necessary permission from the Collector, Barmer, but he failed to resume duty on 22.11.2010 due to the reasons beyond control, however, necessary information in this regard was immediately given through Telegram, FAX and also by SMS. As such, there was no need to place the petitioner under suspension. 4. As such, there was no need to place the petitioner under suspension. 4. While contesting the cause sought to be agitated by the petitioner, the stand of the respondents is as follows:- “That the petitioner on 20.11.2010 sought permission to leave the Head Quarter till afternoon of 21.11.2010 and while granting permission the petitioner was directed to remain present in the camp on 21.11.2010 and perform the official work in the camp on 22.11.2010 but the petitioner did not remain present in the camp on 22.11.2010 than efforts were made to contact the petitioner but of no result as such the conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he voluntary remain absent from the duty more particularly without information. That on 23.11.2010 an application dated 21.11.2010 was received through fax but in the said application the petitioner has neither uttered a single word regarding absence on 22.11.2010 nor have requested to sanction leave for 22.11.2010 apart from that at telegram dated 22.11.2010 was sent in which the petitioner has requested for 10 days leave and the said telegram was received in the office of answering respondent on 24.11.2010. It is further submitted that because of voluntary absent on 22.11.2010 notice to show cause has been issued to the addressed mentioned in the service record of the petitioner but same has been returned with note that petitioner is not found on the given address as such the petitioner has not only remain will fully absent but have not inform his address and on account of such conduct of the petitioner the important Government work has suffered for which the petitioner is responsible. That on account of will full absent of the petitioner in the camp higher official were informed for alternative arrangement. It is further submitted that explanation has been sought from the petitioner and he replied that he had informed to the Learned District Collector Barmer to grant leave on 22.11.2010. That on account of will full absent of the petitioner in the camp higher official were informed for alternative arrangement. It is further submitted that explanation has been sought from the petitioner and he replied that he had informed to the Learned District Collector Barmer to grant leave on 22.11.2010. It is made clear that the said information regarding Leave for 22.11.2010 was sent through telegram and sent telegram was received in the office of District collector on 24.11.2010 as such in the facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioner will fully and without information remained absent from duty and such conduct of the petitioner is nothing but negligence towards the work and disobedience of order of state authority therefore, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and he has been suspended from service vide order dated 06.12.2010.” 5. From perusal of the averments made in reply to the writ petition quoted above, the admitted position that emerges is that the petitioner left the headquarter after seeking permission on 20.11.2010, he availed weekly off on 21.11.2010. On 21.11.2010 an information regarding ailment was given by FAX and then by Telegram to the Collector, Barmer. For remaining absent from duties due to ailment, leave was claimed telegraphically. After reporting on duties on 29.11.2010 an explanation was also submitted by the petitioner. It is also a fact admitted that the petitioner is placed under suspension only for remaining absent from duties from 22.11.2010 to 28.11.2010 and not for any other reason. 6. In this petition for writ I am not supposed to examine as to whether any misconduct was committed by the petitioner while remaining absent from duties in the period aforesaid, but the issue under consideration is that whether the circumstances existing were sufficient to demand suspension of the petitioner from service? 7. I am also aware that the right to place a Government Servant as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 is within exclusive jurisdiction and subjective authority of the competent authority, and also that such a power exercised is not open for interference in normal course. However, if the subjective authority arising out of statute is utilised colourably, then that is certainly open for judicial review. 8. However, if the subjective authority arising out of statute is utilised colourably, then that is certainly open for judicial review. 8. This Court in Samrath Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2010(1) WLC (Raj.) 562 = 2010(2) RLW 1670, discussed the concept of suspension, specially in context to Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, as follows:- “8. In general sense suspension means, a temporary deprivation of the employee's functions or right to discharge his duties, but that does not amount to lower down or reduction of his rank or status. Such emplo-yee, though continuous to be in employment but he is not permitted to work and is paid only a subsistence allowance which is less than salary and other admissible allowances for which he would have been entitled in normal course. The suspension is an interlocutory discipli-nary measure to ensure free and fair conduct of the inquiry or the prosecution, as the case may be. It would be appropriate to place a person under suspension if, (i) his continuance to the office is likely to prejudice inquiry, investigation or trial; or (ii) where his continuance in office is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office concerned; (iii) where his continuance in the office will be against the wider public interest; (iv) where a prima facie case is found to initiate criminal/ departmental proceedings which are likely to lead to his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service; or (v) where he is suspected to have engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State. 9. Beside the above general eventualities, a public servant may also be suspended for misdemeanor like; (i) an offence or conduct involving moral turpitude; (ii) corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of the government funds, possession of disproportionate assets, misuse of official powers; (iii) serious negligence in discharging duty resulting in considerable loss to the government or public at large; (iv) desertion from duty; or (v) refusal or deliberate failure to carry out return or other just orders of the superior officers. 10. The concept of suspension during the inquiry or trial is an important and larger objective of ensuring free and fair conduct of proceedings. 10. The concept of suspension during the inquiry or trial is an important and larger objective of ensuring free and fair conduct of proceedings. Where serious allegations of misconduct are imputed or the employee is undergoing trial for the grave charges, it may be undesirable in the interest of service to continue him on the post. In such circumstances, suspension is a mode for fair and free inquiry as otherwise it would be difficult to facilitate free investigation. However, in every case of suspension its desirability is required to be examined by the competent authority by taking into consideration existing facts. Although the suspension is not a punishment specified, an order of suspension is not required to be passed lightly or mandatorily in every case of the circumstances referred above. Suspension is not required to be resorted unless the allegations against government servant are so serious that those shakes public confidence in governance, if such employee is permitted to continue in office till establishment of his innocence. Before placing an incumbent under suspension, various eventualities are required to be taken into consideration by the competent authority.” 9. In addition to whatever observed in the case of Samrath Singh (supra), it is pertinent to notice that a suspended employee is entitled for subsistence allowance i.e. a 2/3rd part of his regular salary without discharging duties, as such a suspension unwarranted is also a burden on public exchequer. 10. An another aspect of the matter is that the suspension is a very sharp and effective weapon to maintain discipline and control in organisation, but its casual and frequent use reduces its efficacy and is having ill effects including poor-performance, reduced job satisfaction, stress etc., that ultimately results into unhappy work-culture. The authority to place a subordinate under suspension, thus, is required to be exercised very cautiously, objectively and not casually. 11. In the present case it is the position admitted that the suspension of the petitioner from service is resorted only for the reason that he remained absent from duties for about a period of seven days. For such kind of act he can certainly be subjected to disciplinary action but his suspension is undesirable, specially looking to the fact that he left the office with permission of the competent authority and then admittedly some efforts were made by him to provide necessary information to the higher officials. For such kind of act he can certainly be subjected to disciplinary action but his suspension is undesirable, specially looking to the fact that he left the office with permission of the competent authority and then admittedly some efforts were made by him to provide necessary information to the higher officials. In entire reply to the writ petition the respondents failed to point out as to how the continuation of the petitioner in service shall adversely effect any disciplinary action that may be contemplated against him. The facts of the case also not reveal that the petitioner did some so serious or was so negligent that resulted in considerable loss to the Government or public at large. In such circumstances, the argument advanced that the power to place a Government Servant under suspension was exercised in colourable manner, is having force. Thus the order impugned dated 6.12.2010 placing the petitioner under suspension is bad. 12. The petition for writ, therefore, deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 6.12.2010 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.