Sanjivdas vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (Group-3 Complaints), Jaipur under an order dt. 01.11.2012 treated the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 6.10.2012 as he was detained in custody for a period of more than 48 hours. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, a Deputy Director. Directorate of State Insurance and Provident Fund is facing proceedings before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Negotiable Instrument Cases), No. 1, Udaipur for commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. A bailable warrant was issued by the Court to procure his appearance but despite service he failed to attend the Court, thus, a standing warrant of arrest was issued and in pursuant thereto he was arrested and produced before the Court on 6.10.2012. On 6.10.2012 itself the petitioner moved an application seeking his release on bail, but the application was adjourned for 8.10.2012 and he was sent to judicial custody. On 8.10.2012, as a consequent to acceptance of the bail application the petitioner was released from judicial custody.

The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (Group-3 Complaints) vide the order impugned dt. 01.11.2012 treated the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 6.10.2012 in view of the provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958).

While questioning correctness of order of suspension, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case in which the petitioner was detained in custody is having no connection with his service and that in no manner adversely affects the public image of the Department, as such, his suspension is unwarranted. It is asserted that powers under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 are required to be exercised by the competent authority quite cautiously and only in the cases where suspension is necessary to prevent tampering with of evidence or to maintain public confidence in public service.

This Court by the order dt. 26.11.2012 issued notices to the respondents and the same were accepted by Shri MA Siddiqui, learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Personnel. Shri Siddiqui after availing necessary instructions from the respondents stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension only in view of the fact that he was detained in custody for a period of more than 48 hours.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 provides that a government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention by the order of competent authority to place a government servant under suspension under Sub-Rule (1) and that shall remain under suspension until further orders. As per the provision aforesaid, the suspension of a government servant is deemed in the event of his detention in custody for a period of more than 48 hours.

Suffice to mention here that under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the appointing authority or any 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. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 pertains to deemed suspension in the event of arrest and detention beyond 48 hours. The authority to place an incumbent under suspension is certainly available to the appointing authority or an authority to whom the appointing authority is subordinate but such a power is not required to be exercised in each and every case where disciplinary proceedings is contemplated or pending or where a government servant is subjected to a criminal charge. Suspension of a government servant is required to be made only with a view to prevent tampering of the evidence available and also in the cases where the act of the government servant may shake public confidence in public service. In the instant case, the criminal charge faced by the petitioner is compoundable and bailable and his arrest was made for the reason that he failed to appear before the Court, despite service of bailable warrant. He was not detained for any criminal charge that would have been adversely affecting image of the Department or that would have been shaking public confidence in public service. True it is, the petitioner was detained in custody for a period more than 48 hours, but the arrest was neither relating to any issue connected to his service nor for any such incident that would have caused injury to public confidence in public service, as such, the instant one is not a case fit to invoke deeming provision as prescribed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. I am of the considered opinion that in the instant matter placement of the petitioner under suspension by invoking provisions of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 is absolutely unwarranted.

Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order heating the petitioner under suspension since 6.10.2012 is declared illegal and the same is, therefore, quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.