Sanwar Chand Chandel Reasons for Suspension Necessary Prolonged Suspension held Arbitrary

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6719/2007.


SANWAR CHAND CHANDEL
VS.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.


DATE OF ORDER : 06.01.2009.

HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J.

Mr. S.P. Sharma for the petitioner.
None present for the respondents.

The Chief Engineer (Head Qtrs.), Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan by an order dated 27.02.1999 suspended the petitioner while exercising powers under Rule 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The criminal case as a consequent to which the petitioner was placed under suspension, came to be decided by the competent court on 12.03.2004 and the petitioner was acquitted from the charges pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondents passed an order dated 27.04.2004 placing the petitioner again under suspension in view of the fact that a sanction was given for his prosecution relating to some other matter pertaining to the offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Relevant to note here that the order dated 27.04.2004 placing the petitioner under suspension was passed without revoking the earlier suspension made under the order dated 27.02.1999. The respondent State also decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and certain other co-employees as per the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 under a memorandum Annexure 7.

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that no progress has taken place in investigation of the criminal case lodged against him and other certain employees and the departmental enquiry initiated under the Rules of 1958 is also yet not been concluded. The petitioner in the fashion above is facing suspension since 27.02.1999. An appeal was also filed by the petitioner as per provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958 to challenge the impugned suspension, but that too is yet pending consideration. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that certain other co-delinquent employees who were also placed under suspension along with the petitioner have also been reinstated by revoking the suspension. The orders are placed on record as Annexures 9, 10 and 11. By an order dated 05.09.2005, a decision was also taken by the State to revoke suspension of the petitioner, but effect to the same has not been given so far.

No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.02.1999 and since then he is facing the same. No denial of the fact that a decision was taken by the State Government to revoke the suspension of the petitioner is made on behalf of the respondents. This Court in the case of Prem Prakash Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2006(1) CDR 291 (Raj.), while examining the issue relating to prolonged suspension held as follows:

“It is well settled that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person but is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. The proceedings so initiated should be completed expeditiously. In event the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal trial, as the case may be, do not reach to their logical consequence within a reasonable period then it is required that the appointing authority or the authority competent to place public servant under suspension should review the decision to continue such servant under suspension. This Court in similar circumstances in the case of Shaukat Ali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in WLR 1992(S) Raj. 855, held as under:-


“Though technically and legally suspension is not a punishment but the ground reality is that in worse than a punishment. It results in the humiliation of an employee not only before the members of the family but also in the eyes of the world at large. A disciplinary authority or its superior is empowered to place an employee under suspension with a view that enquiry proposed to be held by it is not hampered with and delinquent employee is punished for this misconduct. However, suspension of government employee without expeditiously proceeding with a departmental enquiry or with a criminal case result in grave and serious consequences. On the one hand, it demoralices the government servant; on the other the government has to pay him subsistence allowance over a long period without taking any work from him and virtually a delinquent officer is paid for setting idle. All governmental executive action has to be inspired by dictates of reasonableness, Unjust and arbitrary actions are anathema to the rule of law. Principles of natural justice require that a departmental enquiry, and for the matter a criminal trial, should be conducted expeditiously and without loss of time. If this is not done, the executive government may keep a person under continued suspension for any number of years and in case eventually the charges are found to be groundless or not proved, it may have to pay him heavy arrears of salary etc. I am in agreement (with due respects) with their Lordship of the Madras High Court when the say that there is a very clearly a distinct principle of natural justice, that an officer is entitled to ask if he is suspended from his office because of grave averments or grave reports of misconduct, that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence, and that charges should be framed against him within a reasonable period of time and if such a principle were not to be recognised, it would imply that the executive is being vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress, for an indefinite duration.”


In the present case there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has in any way delayed the trial of criminal case. The only reason given by the respondents is that the circular dated 10.8.2001 restrains reinstatement of a government servant by revoking his suspension till he gets acquittal from the criminal charges. In my considered opinion the circular dated 10.8.2001 cannot curtail the discretion vested with the appointing authority with regard to placing, continuing or revoking suspension of a government servant. The appointing authority or the authority competent under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is required to exercise the powers vested with him independently by taking into consideration all the facts, circumstances and the legal position existing.

In the present case the petitioner is facing suspension since November, 1992. His prolong suspension is certainly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. The respondents failed to show any reasonable cause for prolong suspension of the petitioner. The respondents to ensure that criminal trial continuing against the petitioner remain unhampered he may be posted and transferred at a place where he may not be in a position to create any obstacle in progress of the proceedings. However, I do not find any just and valid reason to continue the petitioner under suspension.”

It is always desirable that the issue relating to the suspension should be reviewed by the competent authorities time to time. A civil servant is not required to be continued under suspension for indefinite period. In the instant matter, the petitioner is facing suspension from last more than 10 years. Such suspension is not only unjust and arbitrary but is also putting an unwarranted burden on public exchequer. I failed to understand that once the State Government has already taken a decision to revoke suspension of the petitioner, then why same has not been executed, specially in the circumstances that the suspension of the other similarly situated co-delinquent employees has already been revoked by the respondents. The continuance of suspension in the present case, as a matter of fact, is unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary being prolonged one.

Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order to revoke suspension of the petitioner within a period of 15 days the petitioner serves a certified copy of this order upon the competent authority i.e. the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

No order to costs.

(GOVIND MATHUR)J.

Anil/