Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 508 (RAJ)

Manveer Singh Beniwal v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-21

ARUN MONGA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Petitioner (a Block Development Officer), is before this Court seeking quashing of an order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure-2) vide which he was suspended from service. Vide an interim order dated 12.05.2023 passed by this court operation and effect of the impugned suspension order was stayed in the following terms:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was placed under suspension along with two more persons, namely, Mr. Hari Mohan Meena & Mr. Laxman Meena. Out of those two persons, Hari Mohan Meena approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10080/2022 (Hari Mohan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.09.2022 passed the following order:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annex.5) placing the petitioner under suspension is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the order could only be passed by the Agriculture Department; and that the order has been passed without application of mind, inasmuch as the petitioner, though presently is posted at Deedwana, it has been indicated that the petitioner is posted at Mundwa. Further submissions have been made that even as per the respondents’ own document (Annex.AA/1), the approval of suspension was sought from the Agriculture Department, which has been denied and the record has been sent back before onward transmission to the Personnel Department, which clearly reflects that the jurisdiction of placing the petitioner suspension, was only with the Agriculture Department. Learned counsel appearing for Panchayati Raj Department attempted to make submissions with reference to the order dated 02.10.2010 (Annex.R/1) that as the entire Water Shed Programme has been transferred to Panchayati Raj Department alongwith Agriculture Engineers, the cadre controlling authority is Panchayati Raj Department only and the order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the respondents themselves have sought approval of the Agriculture Department vide Annex.AA/1, the matter requires consideration. Issue notice. As Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG and Mr.Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG have already put in appearance for the respective respondents, no need to issue fresh notices. Heard on stay petition. During pendency of the present writ petition, effect and operation of the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annex.5) shall remain stayed. The stay petition (10409/2022) stands disposed of. Issue notice. As Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG and Mr.Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG have already put in appearance for the respective respondents, no need to issue fresh notices. Heard on stay petition. During pendency of the present writ petition, effect and operation of the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annex.5) shall remain stayed. The stay petition (10409/2022) stands disposed of. Additional reply, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s case is situated on the same footing as the approval of the suspension order passed by the Panchayati Raj Department has not been received from the Department of Personnel & Training (D.O.P.T.) so far. He submits that getting the concurrence/ approval of the suspension order from the parent department is mandatory as per the Circular dated 12.04.2022 (Annex.5). He further submits that since the same has not been received so far, therefore, the suspension of the petitioner cannot be continued. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner is entitled for the similar interim relief as granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Mohan Meena vide order dated 06.09.2022. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he submits that charge-sheet has been issued in the case of petitioner. On a pointed query being raised with respect to the receipt of approval from the Department of Personnel, the learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that till date, the approval of the suspension order passed by the Panchayati Raj Department has not been received. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and the fact that in similar circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an interim order on 06.09.2022 in the case of Hari Mohan Meena, this Court is of the opinion that similar treatment is required to be extended to the petitioner. In view of the discussions made above, it is ordered that during the pendency of the present writ petition, effect and operation of the order dated 13.07.2022 (Annex.2) passed by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan as well as the order dated 10.01.2023 (Annex.8) passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal shall remain stayed qua the petitioner. The stay petition (1410/2023) stands disposed of.” 2. The stay petition (1410/2023) stands disposed of.” 2. Apropos, petitioner continues to discharge his services without being suspended during pendency of the writ proceedings. 3. Controversy as to the powers to be invoked by a disciplinary / suspending authority to suspend an employee in contemplation of or during pendency of departmental proceedings and parameters governing thereof have been decided today itself in a bunch of connected matters by a detailed order/judgment of even date i.e. 21.02.2025 wherein lead matter is SBCWP No. 1788/2024 (Naresh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). 4. The reasons and discussion contained in Naresh Singh’s judgment ibid shall be read as part and parcel of the instant order and same are not being repeated for sake of brevity. However, it is deemed appropriate that the concluding part of the judgment be reproduced for ready reference, which is as below:- 36. Before parting, it is deemed appropriate that following guidelines are framed to be followed by Competent Authorities / Head of Departments of State in those cases where suspension orders are warranted either in contemplation or pending departmental proceedings:- GUIDELINES (a) Purpose of Suspension: Suspension is not meant as punishment but serves to protect evidence, prevent witness influence, and ensure smooth disciplinary proceedings. It should only be used when absolutely necessary. (b) Discretionary Yet Severe: While suspension is neither described nor prescribed as a punitive measure, it has serious repercussions, affecting an employee’s morale, reputation, and financial stability. It also imposes a financial burden on the government. (c) Prudent Exercise of Authority: Authorities must act with utmost caution, considering all relevant facts before suspending an employee. The decision should be justified by the need to protect evidence and witnesses. (d) Timely Disciplinary Action: If an employee is suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, those proceedings must begin immediately after suspension and be concluded promptly. (e) Defined Timelines: Specific deadlines should be set for each stage of disciplinary proceedings, including as below: i. Initiation – Issuance of charge sheet or show cause notice. ii. Response – Submission of the employee’s reply. iii. Decision – Review of the reply and determination of further action. iv. Inquiry – If necessary, initiation and conclusion of a departmental inquiry. v. Resolution – Submission and review of the inquiry report, followed by a final decision by Disciplinary Authority. ii. Response – Submission of the employee’s reply. iii. Decision – Review of the reply and determination of further action. iv. Inquiry – If necessary, initiation and conclusion of a departmental inquiry. v. Resolution – Submission and review of the inquiry report, followed by a final decision by Disciplinary Authority. (f) Monitoring & Compliance: A mechanism should be established to ensure adherence to these timelines, with periodic reviews and remedial actions, including penalties for defaulters or revocation of unnecessary suspensions. 37. I may also like to make it clear that the aforesaid guidelines are only in those cases where disciplinary proceedings are either pending or contemplated and exclude all those cases of suspension which are owing to either arrest in a criminal proceedings or pending any criminal investigation and / or criminal trial before a competent Court. 38. Apart from the guidelines, supra, it is deemed appropriate that this Court exercises its writ jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to State of Rajasthan through Secretary Personnel to ensure that all the competent authorities who have been vested with the power to suspend a Government servant to adhere to a reasonable time limit to take further action after suspension order is passed. It is, therefore, directed that where there are no criminal proceedings pending, but a Government servant is suspended in contemplation of departmental proceedings, forthwith steps shall be taken for initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge sheet or show-cause notice as the case may be, but the same shall not be later than 30 days with effect from the date of suspension order. In case charge sheet cannot be issued, then one extension of another 30 days shall be permissible provided reasons in writing be recorded and conveyed to the suspended Government servant. 39. The consequence of non-adherence to the 30 days’ time-limit or 60 days, as the case may be, shall necessarily lead to an indefeasible right to seek revocation of the suspension order at the instance of the suspended Government servant upon his approaching the suspending authority or by way of filing an appeal under Rule 22. 40. 39. The consequence of non-adherence to the 30 days’ time-limit or 60 days, as the case may be, shall necessarily lead to an indefeasible right to seek revocation of the suspension order at the instance of the suspended Government servant upon his approaching the suspending authority or by way of filing an appeal under Rule 22. 40. Just as the mandate of timeline to issue charge sheet is to be followed by the suspending / disciplinary authority, likewise upon a Government servant approaching the appellant authority under Rule 22, it shall be incumbent on the appellant authority to dispose of the appeal either way within a period of 30 days of its being received in the office of appellant authority. In case the appeal cannot be disposed of within a period of 30 days, reasons in writing be recorded and conveyed to the suspended Government servant. 41. It is directed that the Government of Rajasthan, i.e. through The Secretary Personnel, shall take appropriate steps to sensitize the concerned authorities of State Government in this behalf and also convey the aforesaid mandamus as well as Guidelines to them for compliance. Registry of this Court is directed to e-mail a copy of the instant order/judgment to the Chief Secretary as well as The Secretary Personnel of the State. CONCLUSION 42. To sum up, though at the cost of repetition, suspension during disciplinary proceedings is intended not as punishment but as a necessary measure to preserve critical evidence and prevent any undue influence over witnesses, thereby ensuring a swift and efficient process. Although not a punitive action under the Service Rules, suspension is a drastic discretionary power that can significantly harm an employee’s morale, reputation, and financial stability, while also imposing an unnecessary fiscal burden on the government. Therefore, authorities must exercise the utmost care and objectivity when deciding to suspend, ensuring that disciplinary proceedings commence immediately and are expedited, with the State Government providing clear guidelines to uphold these principles. If an employee is suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, then the further proceedings against him should be initiated immediately after suspension. Once the disciplinary proceedings commence-contemplated or pending, the same should be proceeded with the necessary urgency and concluded as early as possible. The State Government should issue appropriate instructions to the concerned authorities to bear in mind these parameters, while suspending an employee.” 5. Once the disciplinary proceedings commence-contemplated or pending, the same should be proceeded with the necessary urgency and concluded as early as possible. The State Government should issue appropriate instructions to the concerned authorities to bear in mind these parameters, while suspending an employee.” 5. Resultantly, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents (the disciplinary/suspending authority of petitioner) to take a fresh decision under Rule 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 qua the impugned suspension order of the petitioner in light of the judgment, ibid. Till the proposed decision is taken, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by this court, as above, shall continue to enure to his benefit. In case the suspension is not revoked by the disciplinary/suspending authority, a speaking order shall be passed and the petitioner shall be given 30 days to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules 1958, who shall decide the appeal within the time limit as prescribed in the judgment ibid, and the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to operate in favour of the petitioner subject to any further orders to be passed by the appellate authority. All issues raised by the petitioner are left open to be looked into by the competent / appellate authority, as the case may be. 6. Disposed of accordingly. 7. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.