HARPAT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUSPENSION should not ordinarily be interfered by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when a person is placed under suspension for a serious charge of corruption, unless and until a strong case of malafide is made out.

(2.) ON a complaint lodged by one Naib Singh, the petitiner, who was working as Patwari, was caught red handed for accepting bribe of Rs. 500/ -, therefore, by an order dated 14.9.1998 (Annex. 1) he was immediately transferred as a Leave Reserve Patwari of Tehsil Karanpur.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of this Court has no application to the facts of this case. It is true that petitioner was earlier transferred in 1988 from the place where he alleged to have accepted bribe of Rs. 500/ -, but in such type of cases it is always permissible for the respondents to place a person under suspension. On the facts of this case, I am fully satisfied that no error was committed while placing the petitioner under suspension. From the fact that none -else but the complainant Naib Singh has turned hositle shows that the petitioner was required to be placed under suspension much earlier than the order of suspension which was passed in January, 2001. Mere transfer of such persons against whom offences are registered under Prevention of Corruption Act would not be sufficient. While remaining in service they may put any sort of pressure on the witnesses including complainant or Panch witnesses. It is clear from the facts of this case that in the instant case the complainant himself has turned hositle while deposing in Criminal Court.