JASMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 20.9.2003 passed by the office of the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, vide which the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. During the period of suspension it has been ordered that he shall be entitled to draw subsistence allowance under Rules 7.5 and 7.6 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part-I and would maintain his head-quarters at Karnal, which he shall not leave without permission of the competent authority. The challenge to the order of suspension is on the ground that neither any departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner nor any charge-sheet has been framed till date. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon Rule 4-A of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, wherein it has been stated that a Government employee may be placed under suspension where disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated/pending. Further reliance was also placed upon certain comments referred in the said book referring to issuance of executive instructions regarding interim suspension of employees. According to the learned counsel instructions require that ordinarily suspension of an employee could not be ordered unless allegations are serious and on the basis of evidence available, there is a prima-facie case for imposition of major penalty.

(2.) We are unable to find any merit in this petition and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner before us in this petition. The petitioner is confirmed Social Studies Master of the Department of Education, Government of Haryana. He has served number of years the said department. According to the petitioner his service career is unblemished and no complaint was ever made against him. The petitioner is expected to superannuate on 30.6.2004. The petitioner was deputed for duties at the centre of examination No. 16, Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana on 15.9.2003. He was the Centre Superintendent. The Flying Squad Inspected the centre of the petitioner. According to him everything was found to be running smoothly. However, on the same day at about 4.30 P.M. the Flying Squad team of the Board again visited the Examination Centre despite the fact that every-thing was O.K. Vide letter No. 1/S/02 dated 19.9.2003 the petitioner was relieved of his duties from the Centre and was directed to hand over charge to the Deputy Superintendent of Centre. On 22.9.2003 the petitioner was placed under suspension as already noticed.

(3.) We cannot examine the merits and de-merits of the proceedings taken by the Flying Squad and the consequent orders passed by the authorities subsequent thereto. In the letter dated 19.9.2003 it has been noticed that work of the petitioner in the examination centre was not found to be satisfactory. It is obvious that the department intends to proceed against the petitioner. In the interest of the petitioner itself we will not like to comment on the orders passed at this stage of the proceedings. The power to suspend is specifically provided for even under Rule 4-A of the afore-said Rules. The High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal and examine the facts giving rise to departmental proceedings or passing of such orders. There is no material before us which can persuade us to hold that the order of suspension passed by the respondents is without any material or allegations and also that the same lacks jurisdiction. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raibareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Bhola Nath Singh and others, 1997 2 SCT 640 where the Court took a specific view that the scope of power of judicial review of the High Court in departmental proceedings is not akin to powers of the Appellate Authority. The High Court would exercise its jurisdiction only to review or correct errors of law or procedural defects leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Reference can also be made to the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Musai Ram and others, 2000 3 SCT 50.