P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the impugned order of suspension dt. 13th of January 2012 (Annex.5). As per the version of the petitioner, as depicted in the petition, while working as Driver in the respondent Municipal Board, a First Information Report No. 284 of 2012 was registered against him on 28.07.2011 wherein offences under Sees. 7, 13(1)(3), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') were attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that from a bare perusal of the FIR, it is crystal clear that he has been falsely implicated for the offences under the Act of 1988. In the writ petition, the petitioner has further stated that the third respondent Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Bhinmal was requested by the Anti -Corruption Department to place him under suspension as a consequence of registration of case against him under the Act of 1988. According to the petitioner, the Executive Officer was not authorized to place him under suspension inasmuch as appointing authority is Municipal Board and for that proposition the petitioner has placed reliance on letter dt. 01.09.2011 (Annex.2) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Local Self Government Rajasthan, Jaipur. Subsequent to the communication Annex.2, the Executive Officer has solicited legal opinion and addressed a letter dt. 29th September 2011 (Annex.3) to the Director, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur that the matter concerning suspension of the petitioner shall be placed before the ensuing meeting of the Municipal Board for its decision. The said letter of the Executive Officer was further followed by another letter dt. 22nd November 2011 (Annex.4) to the Director, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, apprising him that decision about the suspension shall be taken by the Municipal Board in its meeting which is in offing. However, the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that without awaiting the decision of the Municipal Board, the impugned order of suspension has been issued by the Executive Officer without there being any authority under the law.
(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, no formal reply to the writ petition was submitted. While assailing the impugned suspension order, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kuldeep Mathur has urged that the order of suspension is illegal and void ab -initio as the author of the order is not competent to pass the same. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in case of Veera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in , 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 484. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the similar circumstances this Court has quashed the order of suspension of an employee of the Municipal Board. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Para 6 to 8 of the said verdict, which are as under: 6. The resolution aforesaid nowhere mentions about any decision for placement of the petitioner under suspension. It simply mentions that appropriate action be taken in accordance with law and further that the revenue clerk be removed from the Revenue Section. The respondent Municipal Board in view of the resolution aforesaid was competent to take any action in accordance with law to maintain discipline in the organization, however, such action is supposed to be taken in accordance with law. As per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the petitioner could have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority or by the other authorities as referred under Rule 13, however, none of the authorities have passed the order impugned. On asking, learned counsel for the respondents specifically denied that any empowerment is there in favour of the Executive Officer to exercise powers under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 relating to Ministerial Staff. 7. By the order dt. 23.04.2010, the Executive Officer also directed the petitioner to report at Municipal Board, Pindwara. This virtually amount to transfer the petitioner and power to do so is available to State Government only under the Municipalities Act. 8. In such circumstances, the order impugned is apparently without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition for writ allowed. The order impugned dt. 23.04.2010 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Abu Road, placing the petitioner under suspension and further directing him to report before the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pindwara is quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take disciplinary action in accordance with law.
(3.) THE learned counsels appearing for the respondents have not disputed this legal position and are in agreement and have fully concurred with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.;