JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has prayed in this writ petition that the respondents be directed by issuance of writ of mandamus to pay entire salary for the period of his suspension from 20.4.05 to 4.10.06 and thereafter for the period of awaiting posting orders from 5.4.06 to 27.7.07 with interest @ 24% per annum, till actual payment and entire period as aforesaid be treated as part of the duty in terms of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 2. The petitioner has further prayed that the order of his suspension dated 20.4.05 be declared as incompetent, without jurisdiction and without the authority of law and this order should be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be awarded adequate compensation for mental torture, loss of reputation and defamation. 3. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Registrar on 6.11.1989. He was promoted on the post of Deputy Registrar on 13.8.1998. He went on deputation as Managing Director with Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sikar for the period from 3.7.2004 to 19.3.2005. It was thereafter that the petitioner was transferred and kept awaiting posting in the department. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.4.2005 under Rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. It appears from two documents which the petitioner himself has placed on record, namely the letter dated 14.6.05 written by Secretary Cooperative Department to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Technical Assistant to the Registrar dated 24.2.06 addressed to Deputy Secretary to the Government in its Cooperative Department that one Shri K.D. Babar, Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly raised an issue on the floor of the house that the petitioner mislead the Government with regard to question of compassionate appointment of Shri Praveen Kumar Kajla. The Government by its letter dated 20.4.05 required the Registrar Cooperative Societies to send the proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. A proposal to this effect together with draft of charge sheet was sent on 10.5.05 and thereafter the letter dated 14.6.05 was sent. 4. The Technical Assistant to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies by his letter dated 24.2.06 wrote back to the Government and sent the required particulars along with that letter. A proposal to this effect together with draft of charge sheet was sent on 10.5.05 and thereafter the letter dated 14.6.05 was sent. 4. The Technical Assistant to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies by his letter dated 24.2.06 wrote back to the Government and sent the required particulars along with that letter. Another letter, which is available on record is one dated 2.1.06 sent by Registrar, Cooperative Societies to the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Societies in which the Registrar conveyed to the Government that a preliminary enquiry was made into the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner, which has revealed that no such irregularity was committed by him and that he was not found guilty of non- compliance of the departmental orders. It was therefore advised that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner would not be justified. A copy of preliminary enquiry report was forwarded to the Government. It was thereafter that the Government by its order dated 4.10.06 revoked the suspension of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing the writ petition No. 9611/06 in which the petitioner challenged the order of his transfer and also claimed payment of arrears of his salary. This Court initially by its order dated 8.12.06, stayed the order of transfer, but subsequently the writ petition was decided by order dated 22.10.07 as having become infructuous in so far as the transfer order was concerned because in the meantime, the petitioner was given fresh posting. Regarding salary, however, it was observed by this Court that the petitioner would be free to make a representation to the concerned authorities. Petitioner accordingly made a representation to the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan dated 11.12.07 demanding the salary minus subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and salary for the period when the petitioner was kept Awaiting Posting Order. When no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner through his counsel served upon the respondents notice for demand of justice on 27.11.08. Hence this writ petition. 5. When no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner through his counsel served upon the respondents notice for demand of justice on 27.11.08. Hence this writ petition. 5. Petitioner argued that he was placed under suspension without making verification of the factual contents of the allegations against him merely on the basis of question raised by the local M.L.A. Shri K.D. Babar Eventually, when the preliminary enquiry was made under order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, it was found that neither did the petitioner commit any irregularity in regard to matter of compassionate appointment of Shri Praveen Kumar Kajla, nor did he violate any Government order. The Technical Assistant to the Registrar by his letter dated 24.2.06 conveyed to the Deputy Secretary, Cooperative Department that the decision to place the petitioner under suspension has been taken at the end of the Government itself and Registrar himself by letter dated 2.1.06 forwarded copy of the preliminary enquiry report conveying that nothing has been found proved against the petitioner. It was thereupon that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked by order dated 4.10.06. 6. Petitioner submits that the guidelines contained in Department of Personnel (for short-'DOP') Circular dated 10.1.01 and 18.7.06 shall have to be adhered to by the Government or any of its Department while placing an employee under suspension. The order of suspension is a non-speaking order, which does not indicate whether petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of any disciplinary proceedings or otherwise for the reason of registration of any criminal case against him. Petitioner had to unnecessarily suffer the agony of suspension for a very long period, so much so that during this period, his case which became ripe for having been considered to Indian Administrative Service also could not be sent to Union Public Service Commission and that his junior got selected. No final order required under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules was passed by the respondents inasmuch as salary for the suspension period minus subsistence allowance was also not paid to him. However, the payment of salary for the period of awaiting posting order was paid very belatedly in June, 2010, but that too without any interest. 7. No final order required under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules was passed by the respondents inasmuch as salary for the suspension period minus subsistence allowance was also not paid to him. However, the payment of salary for the period of awaiting posting order was paid very belatedly in June, 2010, but that too without any interest. 7. No reply to the writ petition has been filed so far, despite the fact that this Court on 1.9.2010 observed that present writ petition shall be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In the circumstances, present matter deserves to be decided on the facts as available on record. 8. Apparently, the suspension order of the petitioner was passed only because certain allegations were made against the petitioner which had no factual foundation and the Government acted in a hurried manner by immediately placing the petitioner under suspension, although the gravity of the alleged irregularity against the petitioner was also not such that the matter could not wait for sometime, at least till the time alleged irregularities on the part of the petitioner were enquired into for prima facie satisfaction that the matter was worth proceeding in disciplinary action. In fact, the Technical Assistant of the Registrar in its letter dated 24.2.06 wrote back to the Government that their office had already conveyed to the Government about the correct details on the question raised by the concerned M.L.A. in the Assembly and yet the Government took the decision to place the petitioner under suspension at its own level. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies in his letter dated 2.1.06 conveyed to the Government that in the preliminary enquiry that was conducted under instructions, nothing has been found proved against the petitioner whether he committed any irregularity or he failed to comply with the Government order. Copy of the preliminary enquiry report was forwarded to the Government. It was thereafter that the Government vide its order dated 4.10.06 revoked the suspension order. 9. Copy of the preliminary enquiry report was forwarded to the Government. It was thereafter that the Government vide its order dated 4.10.06 revoked the suspension order. 9. The guidelines contained in DOP circular dated 10.1.01 provides that normally officer should be placed under suspension only where he is caught red handed in a trap proceeding or where a criminal case involving moral turpitude, embezzlement of funds or some other grievous offence is pending investigation or where he is prima facie guilty of some major lapse and departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules is pending or contemplated against him and the gravity of the charge is such that, if proved, it will most probably lead to his removal or dismissal from service or where the retention of the officer concerned in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the enquiry or it is otherwise inadvisable that he should continue to perform the duties of his office. In order to however clarify the matters, another circular was issued by the DOP on 18.7.2006 to prove that whenever a State Service Office is required to be placed under suspension the proposal, duly approved by the concerned Minister is to be sent to the DOP, who is the competent 8 disciplinary authority and the charges should be framed quickly and charge sheet be sent to DOP within a period of 45 days positively. 10. In the present case, it is evidently clear that those guidelines were breached with impunity. It is trite law that although the policy circulars issued by the DOP are meant for internal guidelines for the functioning of the various Government departments and they cannot be enforced through writ of mandamus but nevertheless such guidelines cannot be ignored in totality. They shall form a valid criteria for testing validity or bonafide of the order of suspension, when questioned before a Court and is subjected to judicial review. 11. In the guidelines contained in Circular dated 10.1.2001, the matters where the suspension would be justified have been placed in four broad categories. It has been provided that a Government servant should be suspended only in cases where the gravity of the delinquency on the part of the official is such which call for immediate action and such matters have to be segregated from other cases, where minor lapses and delinquency of routine nature are involved. It has been provided that a Government servant should be suspended only in cases where the gravity of the delinquency on the part of the official is such which call for immediate action and such matters have to be segregated from other cases, where minor lapses and delinquency of routine nature are involved. In fact, the Government itself in that Circular observed that in some cases, officers are being placed under suspension in a routine manner on account of minor lapses and thereafter charge sheets are being served upon them under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. In order to therefore such practice, the consolidated instructions were issued by this circular dated 10.1.01. The guidelines of these circulars were not at all followed in the case of the petitioner. In fact, they were given a complete go bye because proposal for his suspension ought to have been in the ordinary course sent to the Department of Personnel, which deals with establishment and disciplinary matters relating to members of state service, but here the Government was in so much of hurry that the order of suspension of petitioner was passed by Deputy Secretary to the Government in its department of Cooperative itself. 12. In the present case, applying the litmus test of the guidelines of the Government itself, it cannot be said that the case of petitioner at the stage when the respondents decided to place him was such where an ordinary person of normal prudent could come to prima facie satisfaction about guilt of some major lapse on the part of petitioner, gravity of which if proved, would most probably and likely to lead to his removal or dismissal from service. In fact, no such prima facie satisfaction was arrived by the respondents before placing the petitioner under suspension because record reveals that petitioner was placed under suspension immediately after a question was raised by 10 the concerned M.L.A. Shri K.D. Babar on the floor of the house and preliminary enquiry into the alleged irregularities was ordered subsequently, in which enquiry nothing of that sort was proved against the petitioner. Moreover when initial letter was written by the Secretary to Cooperative Department of the Government to Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 14.6.05, the Technical Assistant to the Registrar by its letter dated 24.2.06 replied that complete facts have also already been sent by the department on the motion raised by the concerned MLA wherein all the facts had been correctly informed and that the decision to place the petitioner under suspension has been made by the Government at its own level. It thus clearly show that the Registrar, Cooperative Society did not find any shred of truth in the allegations against the petitioner and that office of the Registrar, though subject to control of the Government, yet did not favour the order of suspension of the petitioner. 13. This Court is therefore constrained to observe that suspension of the petitioner was made in the most arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner. In fact, order suspending the petitioner was passed in colourable exercise of power. Although that order is now not in question before this Court having already been revoked, nevertheless aforesaid discussion lead to the conclusion that the petitioner has been unnecessarily put to the agony of suspension for a very long time for no fault on his part. Moreover, the respondents have so far not passed any order required under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules despite the fact that there is no proposal for initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the matter having been already dropped. 14. In the result, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to pay entire salary including the period of suspension from 20.4.05 to 4.10.06 and also pay to him interest @ 9% per annum for delay in making this payment and also the payment of salary for the period when the petitioner was kept awaiting posting order from 5.10.06 to 27.7.07. The petitioner is also held entitled to receive cost of the litigation forced upon him, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-, which amount shall also be paid to the petitioner with the aforesaid amount. 15. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents.Petition allowed. *******