SURENDRA KUMAR MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayer to quash the charge-sheets dated 03/07/2020, 16/12/2020 and 22/12/2020 (Anx. 10, 12 and 15) respectively as well as the order dated 07/01/2021 (Anx. 17) whereby he has been placed under suspension under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension order is effected on account of malice and the petitioner has been made a victim on account of the concerned MLA having made complaint against the petitioner wrongfully. It is submitted that the allegations are false. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner relates to an alleged incident of 2017 and the allegations are totally false as the petitioner did not possess an android phone at that relevant time and was not having any face book account. Learned counsel relies on a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha: (2012) 11 SCC 565 to submit that the charge-sheet dated 22/12/2020 (Anx.15) has been issued by the authority who is not competent to issue the same. He also submitted that the charge-sheet can also be quashed on account of having been issued with malice and for a remote incident.

(3.) Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the charge-sheets have been issued to the petitioner and he has been placed under suspension as the allegations are of serious nature and the enquiry requires to be conducted. The petitioner is not holding the post of Commissioner but is of a substantive rank of Executive Engineer. The petitioner cannot claim reinstatement on the post of Commissioner in view of the observations made by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur vide order dated 15/02/2021 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2185/2021, Shrawan Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. wherein the State has been restrained from posting or passing any order of giving charge of Commissioner, Municipality to any person who is not a Commissioner as per Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative and Technical) Rules, 1963. It is further submitted that appeal lies against the order of suspension. The petitioner has not filed reply to the other two charge-sheets. It is for the authority concerned to examine the reply in terms of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and take a decision thereto. Learned counsel relies on a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggrawal: (2013) 16 SCC 147 to submit that suspension is an interim measure. He also relies on an another judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana:(2006) 12 SCC 28 in support of his submissions.