Mahavir Prasad Yadav vs State of Raj. and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—The petitioner while holding the post of Deputy Registrar (Cooperative Societies) was made Zonal Magistrate (Election Incharge) vide order dt.22.11.09 by the District Election Officer, Pali of Ward No. 12 of Municipal Council Pali and was called upon to attend the meeting but the petitioner has not responded despite conversation took place on his mobile phone; the District Election Officer took a decision to place him under suspension for disobeying its order dt.22.11.09 (Annx.1) and since District Election Officer was subordinate to the appointing authority, the matter was referred by him for seeking ratification of his order by the appointing authority as provided under Rule 13 of 1958 and that too has been granted and approved by the appointing authority vide Annx.11 7.5.2010.

Counsel submits that the order by which the petitioner was made Zonal Magistrate of Ward No. 12 Pali was never served upon him, in absence whereof, the decision taken by the District Election Officer placing him under suspension in exercise of powers u/s 13 of the Rules, 1958 was wholly unwarranted and even the order passed by the District Election Officer has been approved after seven months of the order placing him under suspension and that too being without assigning reason is not legally sustainable.

The submission made is without substance for the reason that Rule 13 of the Rules, 1958 clearly postulates that authority subordinate to appointing authority can also take decision to place employee under suspension if required in public interest and such decision has to be ratified/approved by the appointing authority/competent authority as the case may be.

In the instant case, decision was taken by the District Election Officer placing the petitioner under suspension for non-compliance of order by which he was made Zonal Magistrate of Ward No. 12 of Municipal Council Pali and the authority also observed that despite the petitioner was contacted on his mobile phone but still he did not respond to it, which is considered to be a cause of misconduct taking a decision for placing him under suspension and once it has been confirmed/approved by the appointing authority under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1958 his suspension becomes affirmed for all practical purposes under the scheme of Rules,1958.

So far as the submission made that order by which he was made Zonal Magistrate was never served upon him, can be his defence in a departmental inquiry when initiated but the same cannot be examined by this Court at the stage when the decision has been taken placing him under suspension, which is with regard to alleged misconduct being committed by him, in exercise of powers under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1958 and so far as the submission made that the authority has not applied its mind while taking decision is also without substance for the reason that the appointing authority has taken decision to approve the decision of its subordinate authority placing the petitioner under suspension and it goes without saying that the authority must have examined the record while taking the decision impugned.

Consequently, this Court does not find any substance in the petition and same is dismissed accordingly.