D J KANSARA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are ordered to be placed under suspension vide office order No. 11/1996 dated 22-1-1996 passed by the District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad. The petitioners are placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental inquiry. It has been mentioned in the order of suspension that they are being placed under suspension on the charges of grave misconduct, carelessness, dereliction in discharging their government duties, gross negligence to maintain accounts regularly and committing temporary misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 5,500/-. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no question of any misappropriation. Making references to certain documents relating to the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No. 12/1992 he contended that the amount of Rs. 5,500/- has been deposited by the concerned person in the Court only on 9-11-1992 but the date of depositing has erronously been mentioned 9-10-1992. On the basis of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to make out a case that there is no material whatsoever in support of the charge of temporary misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 5,500/-. It has next been argued that this charge is based on no material whatsoever. It is not the only charge against the petitioners. So far as this aspect is concerned, the petitioners, have made a representation to the respondent on 23rd January, 1996. The grievance of the petitioner that his representation has not been considered by the respondent is of no substance because even they had not allowed the ink of the date on the representation to be dried up and they filed this writ petition before this Court on 25th January, 1996. It is not necessary for the authorities to give out all the charges elaborately in the order of suspension. The petitioners had been placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental inquiry i.e. chargesheet is yet to be served upon them. At this stage, it is not advisable for this Court to go on the question whether there is material or not on the record to support the charges. Otherwise, also, the petitioners had failed to produce any material whatsoever on the record to show and establish that there is no material for the charges which are there against them of grave misconduct, carelessness, dereliction in discharging of government duties and gross negligence to maintain the accounts regularly. The material has been produced only to show that the charge of temporary misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 5,500/- is based on wrong facts. This is not the only charge. It is for the disciplinary authority to decide whether the petitioners should continue in the service or they should be placed under suspension. In case the disciplinary authority has taken a decision after taking into consideration the government circulars, High Court letter and the report of the preliminary inquiry the reference of which has been made in the order of suspension, to place the petitioners on suspension, it cannot be said that the authorities acted arbitrarily or without any authority of law. The decision of the disciplinary authority to place the delinquent under suspension pending departmental inquiry is not subject to judicial review by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution excpet on two grounds that the order has been passed malafide and there is no evidence whatsoever to connect the petitioners with the alleged charges. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent has acted malafide in the present case. As far as other grounds are concerned, as previously stated, it is not the stage where it can be said that there is no material whatsoever to connect the petitioners with the charges alleged against them, more so, when the petitioners have also not produced any material whatsoever in respect of the charges except the charge of temporary misappropriation. So far as that charge is concerned, the representation is pending and it is expected of the respondent to decide the same within the earliest possible time. In case on consideration of the representation, the respondent accepts the case of the petitioners, then, it is open to the said authority to reconsider the matter whether on other charges, the suspension of the petitioners is necessary or not. No case whatsoever has been made out by the petitioners for interference in the order of suspension.

(2.) IN the result, this writ petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid observation.