HARI SINGH MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) BY the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dt. 8. 4. 2003 by which he was suspended. Nothing was contemplated and during the enquiry, he was suspended. Suspension cannot be said to be a punishment. The petitioner is facing enquiry relating to matter in which the FIR was lodged by Anti Corruption Bureau.

(3.) IN State of Orissa vs. Vimal Kumar Mohanty (17), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- ". . . . . . when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend the employee. . . the order of suspension would be passed taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by the disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the deliquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law should be laid down in that behalf. . . . . . IN other words, it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetuate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty will pay fruits and the offending employee may get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to provide an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation to win over the other witnesses or the delinquent having had an opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuation of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by malafide, arbitrarily or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in add to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The Authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuation in office while facing departmental inquiry or a trial of a criminal charge. "