BHAGWAN HIRANANDANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing the impugned suspension order dated 1-7-2002 (Annex. 1 ).

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that while working as the District Transport Officer, applications were made on 30-9-95 by Mr. Shamsher Khan and Hafix Mohammed for assignment of new registration mark in respect of motor vehicles, i. e. buses. According to the petitioner, all the requisite documents were produced by the applicants and he sent telegrams to the Registering Authority, Delhi for verification of genuineness of the No Objection Certificates stipulating 15 days time for reply but no reply was received and as such, after expiry of 18 days therefrom, he assigned new registration marks to the vehicles. An FIR was lodged in such matters on 3-3-97 against the petitioner and co-accused Sarvashri B. L. Meena, D. T. O. , Giriraj Kumar Gupta, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Norat Mal Agarwal, D. T. O. for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 481, 482, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. His grievance is that vide impugned order Annex. 1 dated 1-7-2002, he has been subjected to selective suspension as co-accused named above have not been put under suspension. His further grievance is that he had acted in accordance with the rules and there is no legal or procedural error committed by him still he has been suspended for an incident which took place on 30-9-1995 and FIR of which had been lodged on 3-3-97. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) HOWEVER, so far as other co-accused named out in the FIR are concerned, the question of selective suspension cannot be considered as those persons have not been made party-respondents by name. HOWEVER, the question of suspension is a matter of discretion of the Competent Authority arrived at after subjective satisfaction. There is limited scope of interference by this court in such matters. Even otherwise, if suspension orders have not been passed against co-accused, petitioner cannot seek relief on this ground because Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality.