UPENDRA MISHRA Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful petitioner to the Writ Petition is the appellant in this appeal. THE Writ Petition was filed to quash the order of suspension, Annex. 10, and also to issue the direction to the respondent No. 2 to decide the inquiry in view of the reply submitted by the appellant- petitioner, Annex. 3, 6 and 9.

(2.) THE respondent No. 2 issued three notices and statement of allegations under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, on 10th March 2000. THE first notice is (Annex. 1 ). THE statement of allegations is Annex. 2. THE appellant submitted reply to Annex. 1 and 2 in under Annex. 3. THE second notice is Annex. 4 and the statement of allegations is annex. 5; the reply was submitted under Annex. 6. THE third notice is Annex. 7 and the statement of allegations is in Annex. 8. Reply by the appellant is in Annex. 9. THE above three notices were issued for taking action under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. According to the appellant, the disciplinary authority has to take a decision in the matter, but however, the respondent No. 2 has not taken any action. Hence, the prayer to issue direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the inquiry and pass orders.

(3.) THE second case cited by the petitioner-appellant will also be of no assistance to decide the question at issue raised in the present writ petition. In that case, the petitioner was suspended from service in view of the contemplated disciplinary proceedings. It was alleged that the order of suspension is unwarranted, arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable in law. Several other grounds have been given as grounds of challenge as made in the writ petition. A reply was filed by the respondents defending the action of suspension. Refuting the objection of maintainability of the petition, the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. C. Sood was relied on by the petitioner. THE learned Single Judge. (V. G. Palshikar, J.), on a perusal of the judgment referred to before him, was of the view that it is well within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine in a situation, as an exceptional case, after scrutinising the record to see that order of suspension is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted. After analysing the facts as averred in the pleadings of the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the suspension order is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted. Yet, another reason which prompted the learned Judge to quash the order of suspension was that if all the facts, which according to the respondent Board, gave rise to the misconduct are admitted and in such circumstances, the order of suspension appeared to be a mechanical exercise of powers. THE learned Judge has also given his reasons for quashing the order of suspension in Para 16 of his order. THE above judgment, in our opinion, has also no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and is distinguishable on facts. Since the whole case proceeded on the basis that for an admitted position, no further investigation is required, therefore, the suspension of an employee on the ground of misconduct is not warranted and that the said action was without application of mind.