- (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.9.1996 (Annx.6), by which petitioner, an Officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service cadre, has been put under suspension, being involved in a criminal case.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner remained posted as the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Land Conversion Officer, Jodhpur from 12.9.91 to 31.3.1992. It transpired that during that period, seventy-eight files of his office were found missing and forty-eight files therefrom were recovered. In all those cases, orders of conversion of land from agriculture to residential had been passed on 23.11.89 by some another officer, i.e. predecessor-in-office of the petitioner. In some cases Pattas had been issued on 20.3.92 & 30.3.92, i.e. during the period when petitio- ner was posted there. THEse Pattas purported to have been signed by the petitioner. In this respect, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against several officers/employees and criminal prosecution was also launched. In both these proceedings, it is became evident that petitioner's signatures had been forged and he was examined as a witness of the Department in the disciplinary proceedings held against certain other employees. However, on the criminal side, charges have been framed against large number of persons including petitioner vide order dated 28.8.98 and the case is pending. It is in view of pendency of the criminal proceedings that the impugned suspension order has been passed against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the powers u/Sec.13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, "the C.C.A. Rules"). Hence this petition. Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned counsel for petitioner, has raised large number of issues, i.e. that the petitioner had not signed any of the alleged Pattas, rather his signatures had been forged; no domestic inquiry has ever been held against him even for his negligence in that respect, rather he has been examined as a departmental witness in the inquiry against several other persons; criminal prosecution is in respect of the same incident and it has been mentioned in the order sheet by the Criminal Court that petitioner's signatures had been forged; thus, in such a fact-situation his continuation under suspension for such a long time is not justified and as the Disciplinary Authority did not consider it proper to revoke the suspension order on his representation, this Court may quash the impugned order. On the contrary, Mr. P.C. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that mere pendency of a criminal case is enough to pass an order of suspension and so long the criminal case remains pending, suspension order cannot be revoked. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and perused the original record produced by Mr. Sharma during the hearing of the case. It is settled legal proposition that during suspension, relationship of master and servant continues between the employer and the employee. However, the employee is forbidden to perform his official duties. In certain cases, suspension may cause stigma even after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by the criminal court, but it cannot be treated as a punishment even by stretch of imagination in strict legal sense.
(3.) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), observed that the Authority competent to appoint a public servant would be entitled to suspend him during pendency of the departmental enquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal case. While reiterating a similar view in Balvantray Ratilal Patel vs. State of Maharashtra (2), the Apex Court held as under:- "It is now well settled that the power to suspend, in the sense of a right to forbid to work, is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, and that such a power can only be the creature either by the Statute governing the contract, or of an express term in the contract itself. Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed under some statute, would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman.... Where, however, there is a power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the Statute or the rules framed thereunder, the order of suspension has the effect of temporary suspending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that servant is not bound to render services and the master is not bound to pay." In Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi vs. Hotel Workers Union (3), T. Cajee vs. Jormik Sienu (4), and V.P. Gindroniya vs. State of M.P. (5), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that putting a Government servant under suspension during the pendency of Departmental Proceedings or Criminal trial, means that the Government merely issued a direction that he must not do any thing in discharge of the duties of his office and the employee is bound by the said order. ;