Civil Service Rules | Suspension Ordinarily 'Preventive' But Suspension Over Trivial Allegations At Previous Posting 'Punitive': Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the suspension order passed under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1951 (“the Rules”) is not punitive in nature but preventive as a precaution against employee influencing or hampering the course of inquiry or tempering with the material related to it.
However, suspending an employee over trivial allegations of misconduct, that too at his previous place of posting, is punitive.
“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 can be passed, however when the alleged misconduct is of a trivial nature and that is relatable to his previous place of posting which is around 700 kms away from his present place of posting still passing an order of suspension seems to be punitive instead of a preventive one.”
Rule 13 of the Rules lays down conditions and procedure of suspension.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a writ petition filed by a government employee against the suspension order of the Government passed under Rule 13 of the Act pursuant to serving him a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules.
Rule 17 of the Act lays down procedure for imposing minor penalties
Apart from challenging the order on other grounds, one of the arguments put forth by the counsel for the petitioner was that the alleged incident of misconduct occurred when the petitioner was posted at his previous place of posting which was 700 Kms away and a completely different geographical & administrative jurisdiction.
It was submitted that he could not influence or obstruct any investigative process as he was transferred to a new place and that his past conduct should not be considered to suspend him from his current posting.
Agreeing with the counsel for the petitioner, the Court highlighted that the allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet were of his previous place of posting and that too related to some variations in the weights of loaded mineral gravel which was trivial in nature. Nothing concrete was found against the petitioner relatable to his present place of posting.
The Court highlighted that under Rule 13, there were two circumstances where suspension was allowed, one was where the disciplinary proceedings was contemplated or pending and second was where the criminal offence was under investigation or trial. It was opined that when the petitioner was ordered to be suspended none of these conditions were fulfilled.
Furthermore, the Court also held that the petitioner was transferred to a far off place from the previous place of posting where the alleged misconduct was done and there was no reasonable possibility of the petitioner interfering with any potential inquiry related to his previous place of posting. It was held that passing an order of suspension over a trivial misconduct that too relating to previous place of posting reflected the suspension order to be punitive instead of preventive.
In this background, coupled with other reasons, the Court ruled that for the projected charges, inquiry may be initiated against the petitioner, but during the course of inquiry, his suspension was not required particularly when the charges related to petitioner's previous place of posting.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed.
Title: Prakash Mali v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 338