SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the impugned order of suspension dt. 13th of January 2012 (Annex.5). As per the version of the petitioner, as depicted in the petition, while working as Driver in the respondent Municipal Board, a First Information Report No. 284 of 2012 was registered against him on 28.07.2011 wherein offences under Sees. 7, 13(1)(3), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') were attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that from a bare perusal of the FIR, it is crystal clear that he has been falsely implicated for the offences under the Act of 1988. In the writ petition, the petitioner has further stated that the third respondent Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Bhinmal was requested by the Anti -Corruption Department to place him under suspension as a consequence of registration of case against him under the Act of 1988. According to the petitioner, the Executive Officer was not authorized to place him under suspension inasmuch as appointing authority is Municipal Board and for that proposition the petitioner has placed reliance on letter dt. 01.09.2011 (Annex.2) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Local Self Government Rajasthan, Jaipur. Subsequent to the communication Annex.2, the Executive Officer has solicited legal opinion and addressed a letter dt. 29th September 2011 (Annex.3) to the Director, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur that the matter concerning suspension of the petitioner shall be placed before the ensuing meeting of the Municipal Board for its decision. The said letter of the Executive Officer was further followed by another letter dt. 22nd November 2011 (Annex.4) to the Director, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, apprising him that decision about the suspension shall be taken by the Municipal Board in its meeting which is in offing. However, the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that without awaiting the decision of the Municipal Board, the impugned order of suspension has been issued by the Executive Officer without there being any authority under the law.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, no formal reply to the writ petition was submitted.

(3.) THE learned counsels appearing for the respondents have not disputed this legal position and are in agreement and have fully concurred with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.