K.L. Ninania vs State of Rajasthan and Others

M.N. Bhandari, J.—By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 9th June, 2015, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension and further challenge is made to the order dated 10th July, 2015, by which representation of the petitioner was rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees (Disciplinary Action and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short "the Regulations of 1976"), the order of suspension can be passed only when an inquiry into grave charges of suspected disobedience, malpractice or misappropriation is contemplated or is pending or during inquiry. It is also when continuance of employee is considered to be detrimental to the interest of the Board. The case in hand is not such where any of the grounds given under Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1976 for suspension are made out. The petitioner is one who was asked to undertake the work of construction of the houses at Kishangarh. Since area in question was rocky and hilly thus foundation was laid on the uneven surface at certain places. The technical approval of the work was taken from the competent authority followed by execution of the work. The petitioner has now been charge sheeted alleging incurring of extra expenditure for construction of the houses in ignorance of the fact that technical approval was taken before execution of work. In the background aforesaid, charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to be grave of suspected disobedience, malpractice or misappropriation. The working of the petitioner cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the Board. In view of above, order of suspension deserves to be quashed.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board submits that charges against the petitioner are grave in nature. He had executed the work with heavy expenditure without financial approval. The Housing Board make registration of the houses in favour of applicant on fixed rates. The variation in the rates cannot be made which may change it substantially. In the instant case, the petitioner incurred extra amount in construction as upto plinth level itself, the sanctioned amount was incurred to the extent of 80% to 85% or so. In view of above, Housing Board had to make curtailment in the construction so as to match the cost published in the Booklet. The petitioner executed the work without financial sanction before payment. It was found to be a case of grave nature of suspected disobedience and malpractice on the part of the petitioner. The charge sheet has already been served on the petitioner and now the inquiry officer is proceeding in the matter. Thus at this stage, interference in the order of suspension may not be made.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order of suspension so as order by which representation of the petitioner was rejected. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to make a representation. In pursuance to the direction aforesaid, representation was submitted by the petitioner and has been rejected. The challenge to the order of suspension is mainly in reference to Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1976 which is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

"9. Suspension-(a) An officer or employee may be placed under suspension when;

(i) An enquiry into grave charges of suspected disobedience, malpractice or misappropriation is contemplated or is pending or during enquiry his continuance in service is considered to be detrimental to the interest of the Board, or

(ii) A complaint against him on any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.

(b) An order of suspension under clause (a) may be revoked at any time by the authority making the order or by any authority to which it is subordinate."

The suspension can be made when inquiry into grave charges of suspected disobedience, malpractice or misappropriation is contemplated or is pending. The continuance of the employee may be detrimental to the interest of the Board. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, none of the grounds given under Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1976 is made out. The inquiry into the matter is pending as admitted by both the parties. It is after serving the charge sheet. In view of above, inquiry is in progress. If I make any comment on the charges at this stage, it would be detrimental to the either of the party. It is as to whether charges are grave of suspected disobedience, malpractice or misappropriation which can be considered detrimental to the interest of the Board. In view of above, this court is not inclined to make any comment on the charges but taking into consideration facts of the case, I am of the opinion that inquiry should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It should be conducted on day to day basis. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the inquiry officer. If he fails to cooperate in the inquiry, the period of two months would be treated as extended by the period for which the petitioner would not co-operate with the inquiry officer. In case the inquiry is not completed within the time given above or within the extended period, as observed, the respondents would consider case of the petitioner for recall of the order of suspension, rather in that eventuality they will pass appropriate order to recall the order of suspension keeping the period intervening subject to final outcome of the inquiry.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. This disposes of the stay application also.