Employee Suspension related to Inquiry not necessary if posting is far from inquiry location

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a suspension order under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1951, is intended as a preventive measure, not a punitive action. Suspension is permissible to prevent an employee from influencing or obstructing an inquiry or tampering with evidence. However, the Court emphasized that suspending an employee for trivial allegations of misconduct from a previous posting, particularly when the location is far from the current posting, constitutes a punitive act.

Key Observations by the Court

• Nature of Rule 13:
  Rule 13 allows suspension under two conditions:
  1. When disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending.
  2. When a criminal offense is under investigation or trial.
     The provision is preventive, ensuring that the employee does not interfere with the inquiry or tamper with evidence.
• Context of Suspension:
  The petitioner, a government employee, was suspended after receiving a charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules for alleged misconduct at a previous posting, located 700 kilometers away from his current posting. The allegations involved minor discrepancies in the weight of loaded mineral gravel.
• Court’s Analysis:
  Justice Farjand Ali noted that:
  • The alleged misconduct was unrelated to the petitioner’s current posting.
  • No evidence indicated the petitioner could influence or obstruct the inquiry from his present location.
  • Suspension in this context appeared punitive rather than preventive.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The alleged misconduct occurred at the petitioner’s previous posting, which was under a different geographical and administrative jurisdiction.
• Being at a new location, the petitioner could not influence the investigation.
• The trivial nature of the allegations did not warrant suspension.

Court’s Findings

• Trivial Allegations: The Court observed that the charges were minor and related to the petitioner’s previous posting, with no evidence connecting him to misconduct at his current location.
• Preventive Purpose of Suspension: Suspension is intended to protect the integrity of an inquiry. In this case, no conditions under Rule 13 justified the petitioner’s suspension.
• Punitive Action: Passing a suspension order for alleged misconduct at a previous location appeared punitive, contrary to the rule’s intent.

Conclusion

The Court ruled that while an inquiry could be initiated against the petitioner for the charges, suspension was unnecessary. The trivial nature of the charges and the lack of any connection to the petitioner’s current posting made the suspension order unjustifiable. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the suspension order was quashed.

Trending 🔥