ORDER : 1. These three writ petitions involve identical issue, therefore, the same are being adjudicated and decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners herein have been placed under suspension vide orders dated 27.05.2025 (Mr. Vivek Singh) and 04.06.2025 (Mr. Rajneeesh Vidyarthi and Mr. Dayashankar Gupta) on the premise that departmental proceedings are contemplated against them for the alleged irreguarlites in vehicle registration committed by them while being posted at the District Transport Office, Sawai Madhopur. They have preferred the instant writ petitions challenging the validity and propriety of the aforementioned suspension orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the validity, legality and propriety of the impugned suspension orders, submit that the very foundation on which the suspension has been ordered stands vitiated. It is contended that all the petitioners have been placed under suspension on the allegation of certain misconduct said to have been committed by them during their past postings at the District Transport Office, Sawai Madhopur. However, prior to the issuance of the impugned suspension orders, each of the petitioners had already been transferred to different District Transport Offices, falling within entirely distinct geographical and administrative jurisdictions. It is submitted that once the petitioners were relieved from their earlier place of posting and had assumed charge at their new postings, there remained no rational basis for the respondents to resort to the extreme step of suspension on the premise of past conduct. The respondents have failed to consider that the petitioners, being posted in different districts altogether, have no occasion, authority, or proximity to influence, interfere with, or obstruct any investigation or departmental enquiry that may be contemplated with respect to their earlier place of posting. Thus, the purported object of suspension, namely, to ensure an uninfluenced enquiry, stands wholly defeated, rendering the order arbitrary, disproportionate and unsustainable in law. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the case of petitioner Mr. Vivek Singh is on an even more precarious footing. The impugned suspension order in his case proceeds on an apparent factual error, inasmuch as it records his place of posting to be Sawai Madhopur, whereas undisputedly, on the date of issuance of the suspension order, he was serving at Jaipur pursuant to a valid transfer and joining. This fundamental factual mistake strikes at the root of the satisfaction purportedly arrived at by the competent authority and exposes complete non-application of mind. This fundamental factual mistake strikes at the root of the satisfaction purportedly arrived at by the competent authority and exposes complete non-application of mind. It is argued that an order of suspension founded upon incorrect and non-existent facts cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. 5. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgments passed in Naresh Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1788/2024) decided on 21.02.2025 and Prakash Mali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14688/2024) decided on 22.10.2024. 6. With these submissions learned counsel for the petitioners pray for acceptance of the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. They submitted that the instant writ petitions not maintainable and sustainable as the petitioners have approached this Court directly while having alternative remedy so also it is urged that it is well settled principle of law that suspension is not a punishment and therefore, it cannot be challenged under extra ordinary jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court by way of filing a writ petition rather they should have attended the proceedings initiated and pending before the competent authority of the State in the present matter and submit their response there and get the matter concluded. If the conclusion is found against them, then they have equally efficacious statutory remedy to challenge the same before the proper forum available under the relevant law. 8. It is further contended that enquiry has been contemplated against the petitioners and which is evident from the charge- sheets issued to them. The respondents are competent to issue an order of suspension under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958 owing to the fact that the departmental enquiry was contemplated. 9. It is further submitted by the counsel that Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, 1958 contains a provision of Appeal against the order of suspension, so the petitioners had an alternative remedy available with them and therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. 11. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. 11. After examining the record and considering the submissions and materials placed before the Court, it prima facie emerges that the petitioner Vivek Singh was placed under suspension by order dated 27.05.2025. Prior thereto, he had already been transferred from the District Transport Office, Sawai Madhopur to the Regional Transport Office, Jaipur–II, Jaipur. Petitioner Dayashankar Gupta was suspended by order dated 04.06.2025, on which date he was serving at the District Transport Office, Chittorgarh pursuant to his transfer. Similarly, the petitioner Rajneesh Vidhyarthi was suspended on 04.06.2025 while posted at the District Transport Office, Bundi. Prior to this, he had been transferred from Sawai Madhopur to Kota, thereafter from Kota to Sirohi, and subsequently from Sirohi to Bundi, where the suspension order was served upon him. It is further noted that the charge-sheets issued to the petitioners do not pertain to their place of posting at the time the suspension orders were passed. The allegations contained therein relate to acts purportedly committed at the District Transport Office, Sawai Madhopur, their earlier place of posting. No material has been brought on record to indicate any wrongdoing by the petitioners in relation to their respective places of posting at the time of suspension. In these circumstances, there appears to be no reasonable likelihood that the petitioners’ continued presence at offices other than Sawai Madhopur would impede or prejudice any inquiry or investigation concerning their previous postings. 12. The provision of placing an employee under suspension is not punitive but preventive as a precaution that the employee may not influence/hamper the course of inquiry or temper with the material related to it; an order under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules can be passed, however, when the alleged misconduct is relatable to his previous place of posting which is far away from his present place of posting, still passing an order of suspension seems to be punitive instead of a preventive one. 13. In the opinion of this Court, although the authority has the power to suspend a government employee when a departmental enquiry is proposed, this power cannot be used casually. The authority must apply its mind and ensure that suspension is actually necessary. Suspension is justified only when it has a direct connection with ensuring a fair enquiry. 13. In the opinion of this Court, although the authority has the power to suspend a government employee when a departmental enquiry is proposed, this power cannot be used casually. The authority must apply its mind and ensure that suspension is actually necessary. Suspension is justified only when it has a direct connection with ensuring a fair enquiry. When an employee has already been transferred to another district, far away from the place where the alleged misconduct occurred, and has no access to the earlier office, the need for suspension reduces significantly. 14. Courts have repeatedly held that suspension should not be imposed as a routine measure or used as a form of punishment. It must be a preventive step, taken only when there is a real possibility that the employee may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. In the present cases, nothing on record shows that the petitioners, working in entirely different districts, could in any manner interfere with any enquiry relating to their previous posting at Sawai Madhopur. The respondents have not produced any material to suggest that the petitioners’ continuing in service at their present postings would affect the enquiry. 15. The case of petitioner Vivek Singh also highlights a clear error. His suspension order wrongly states that he was posted at Sawai Madhopur on the date of suspension, whereas he had already joined at Jaipur. A suspension order based on incorrect facts clearly shows non-application of mind and cannot be legally sustained. Any administrative order that causes serious consequences must be based on correct and relevant facts. 16. The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by filing an appeal under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and, therefore, the writ petitions should not be entertained. However, when an order is arbitrary, based on wrong facts, or passed without proper application of mind, the High Court can still exercise its writ jurisdiction. Since the suspension orders in the present cases suffer from these defects, this Court finds it appropriate to interfere. 17. The petitioners have relied on two earlier judgments. The judgment in Prakash Mali v. State of Rajasthan directly applies to the present cases because it deals with a similar situation where an employee was suspended even after being transferred away from the place of alleged misconduct. 17. The petitioners have relied on two earlier judgments. The judgment in Prakash Mali v. State of Rajasthan directly applies to the present cases because it deals with a similar situation where an employee was suspended even after being transferred away from the place of alleged misconduct. The decision in Naresh Singh v. State of Rajasthan lays down general principles regarding suspension and emphasises that suspension should not be ordered mechanically. Both judgments support the view that suspension must have a clear and reasonable purpose and should not be imposed when the employee cannot influence the enquiry. 18. Considering all the above facts, this Court finds that the suspension orders dated 27.05.2025 and 04.06.2025 are not sustainable. They have been issued without proper application of mind and without any reasonable justification. Since the petitioners were already posted in completely different districts, the suspension had no preventive purpose and, therefore, cannot stand. 19. Accordingly, all three writ petitions are allowed. The impugned suspension orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be reinstated to their respective posts forthwith. However, the respondents are free to continue or initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the correctness of the allegations levelled against them. 20. No order as to costs.