'Limited Power Of Judicial Review In Suspension Cases': Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea By Govt Employee Suspended For Allegedly Fabricating Documents

Dismissing a petition against suspension of a government employee in contemplation of the departmental enquiry against him, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope of interference in matters of suspension was very limited.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said, “In matters of suspension, the exercise of extraordinary power of judicial review vested in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of consideration is limited to the extent of examining the competence of the authority who places an employee under suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective suspension; allegations are frivolous/ technical in nature; suspension was wholly unwarranted; and there was no application of mind.In matters of suspension, each case has to be examined in the factual back ground of given case.”

Referring to various Supreme Court judgments of the subject, the high court culled out certain principles, some of which are as follows:

1. Suspending an employee was not an administrative, routine or automatic order that could be passed lightly. Rather, gravity of the offence had to be considered.
2. Suspension should be an aid to reach the final result of the inquiry.
3. Power to suspend should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner, without any reasonable ground, and should be used only when there was a strong prima facie case of delinquency.
4. The purpose of suspension was to complete the inquiry/ investigation proceedings without any hindrance.
5. Relevant facts should be considered by the competent authority along with the fact that to what extent public interest would suffer if the delinquent was not suspended.

It was the petitioner's case that his appointment to the post of general manager (marketing) (Cooperative Recruitment Board) was earlier challenged in a writ petition in which it was alleged that he had got the appointment based on forged experience letter. In response to the allegations, the State had submitted a reply in favour of the petitioner. It was argued that once a favourable reply was submitted by the State, they could not have taken a U-turn by conducting preliminary enquiry and suspending the petitioner without any relevance since the petitioner was not influencing the departmental enquiry or any of the witnesses.

On the contrary, it was submitted by the State that 10 candidates were appointed and petitioner's name, though not recommended initially, was added later by using correction fluid in the note-sheets. It was argued that an incorrect reply was given on behalf of the State, but when this mistake was realized, a preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein allegations were proved against the petitioner. Looking at the gravity of allegations, decision was taken to place the petitioner under suspension till conclusion of enquiry.

After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the duties and discipline of public servant was governed by service rules and regulations, and the power to suspend an employee came out of the power to take disciplinary action on allegation of misconduct. It observed:

“In matters of suspension, there are two competing interests. On the one side is employer's eagerness to ensure transparent operation of public service and to enforce discipline. Therefore, he would mince no words to take disciplinary action when any misconduct comes to his notice. When allegations are grave/ disobedience is palpable, it is also in public interest to place such employee under suspension. On the other hand is the concern of the employee. It is an accepted fact that though suspension does not takeaway the employment and is not a punishment per se, but it has deleterious effect on the employee and his family and attaches stigma…”

The court observed that it was required to check the legality of such suspension based on the following:

1. Whether the suspension was done to enforce discipline or to convey to other employees that dereliction of duty could not be tolerated or to ensure that the employees would not create a hurdle in smooth conduct of enquiry.
2. Whether such power was exercised not as an administrative routine, or an automatic consequence of alleged misconduct.
3. Whether there was careful consideration of the issue and misconduct in right perspective.

In this background, the Court highlighted that as per the conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, the allegation against the petitioner was that he had fabricated certain documents for getting the appointment along with certain manipulations in the official note-sheet by applying correctional fluid.

Hence, looking at the nature of allegations, the Court held that there was no error in suspending the petitioner, and accordingly, the petition was dismissed while ruling that since suspension cannot not be for an indefinite period, the departmental inquiry had to be preferable completed within 4 months.

The court however said that it had not expressed its opinion on the merits of the matter.

Case Title: Pankaj Bhootra v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 420

Click Here To Read/Download Order