Bhanwar Lal Chandalia vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

G.M. Lodha, J.—"Substantial Justice for Social Justics" should be the bedrock of writ jurisdiction in contradiction to "technicalities and hair aplitting or pound of flesh Portia Advocacy."

Equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts which are flooded with over mounthing arrears of; should not be allowed to enact "Merchant of Venice" of Shakespear. It should be utilised speedily and progressively to impart Real, Substantial, Social Justice to the real needy persons who have become victims of injustice.

This being the pivot of this judgment, let facts be narrated now.

Bhanwar Lal Chandalia employee of the Mining Department has been suspended by the order dated 9th April, 1980 vide Exhibit-2, which reads as under:

^^ pwfd Jh Hkaojyky p.M+kfy;k] rRdkyhu los;j dk;kZy; [kkfu vfHk;Urk ] cqfUnh ds fo:) fopkjk/khu Qkstnkjh eqdnes es ekuuh; fof''k"B U;k;k/kh''k 10 fu0ekZ0 dskVk us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 26&3&80 es nks"kh ik;s x;s gS A

vr% fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ jktLFkku vlSfud lsok, gsS �oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k o t"khy �fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 16 ds p.M+kfy;k los;j dsk rqjUr izHkko ls fuefEcr djrs gS A

Jh p.M+kfy;k dk fuyEcu vof/; es eq;ky; dk;kZy; [kkfu vfHk;Urk HkhyokM+k es jgsxk rFkk fu;ekuqlkj thou fuokZg HkRRkk ns; gksxk A

,l0 Mh0

� ;ksxsUnz ukFk nqcs �

funs''kd

iz''kklfud vf/kdkj

The reason for order of suspension is that Bhanwar Lal Chandalia has been convictedfor offence u/s 161 I.P.C and u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Special Judge, Kota.

This suspension order has teen challenged in this writ application. Mr. Vimal Chaudhary learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is no power under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Servics (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 to suspend an employee and therefore, the order per se is without jurisdiction and illegal.

So far as his conviction is concerned, Mr. Chaudhary has pointed out that there is an order Exhibit-I of the High Court by which his appeal against conviction has been admitted and he has been kept on bail.

I have considered the submissions of Mr. Vimal Chauduary and technically his submission is not without force. However this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to examine the substance of the matter in order to do substantial justice and hair splitting contentions and Technical contentions are to be rejected, they do not find any substance on a bare scrutiny. The power of suspension is given under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, which reads as under:

"Rule 13. Suspension

(1) The Appointing Authority or any other authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension:

(a) where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or

(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial:

Provided that where the order of suspension is made by a lowar authority than the Appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made."

The above would show that an employee can always be suspended if criminal case is pending against him. In the alternative be can also be suspended if disciplinary proceedings are contemplated aginst him or they are pending.

Undoubtedly in the instant case after conviction the appeal is pending. That being so the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. Irrespective of the fact whether the departmental disciplinary proceeding are contemplated or not, the petitioner is liable to be suspended under Rule 13.

The mere fact that Rule 16 has been mentioned in the impugned order would not vitiate the order since the power under Rule 13 are there.

Mr. Chaudhary further submitted that some employees in the police department in similar circumstances have not been suspended. Invoking of Article 14 of the Constitution in such circumstances is wholly misconceived. Neither the head of the department is same nor the facts of the case are same. I am, therefore, of the opinion, there is no force in this writ petition and consequently it is dismissed in limine.