G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) SHRI Arun Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no history of previous warning of misconduct and lapses on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner has been suspended and his head quarter has been changed transferring to Ajmer only during contemplation of the inquiry, which has resulted in great humiliation and harassment so also the hardship, as the petitioner has got three daughters and two sons besides his wife and, the daughters and sons are studying in primary classes at Dausa.
(2.) SHRI Bhandari submitted that the order of suspension is not a speaking order and it has not been mentioned that, whether the preliminary inquiry has been conducted or not and, what type of the charges are against the petitioner. Having heard Shri Bhandari, I find that the order of suspension calls for no interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order expressly says that inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called to be 'the CCA Rules') is under contemplation against the petitioner and the petitioner is being suspended under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. Rule 13 runs as under: "13. Suspension :- (1) 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: Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an lower authority than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made." The suspension of a Government employee in contemplation of any inquiry or during an inquiry cannot be challenged except on the limited ground of malafide and malice, in a given case, it is not necessary that before the order of suspension is passed, there should be a previous history of misconduct reported against the government employee under the Rules. If finally, the Government employee is exonerated, then he becomes clearly entitled to the entire emoluments of salary and other amenities of that period. On the contrary, if he is punished in the departmental inquiry under R. 16 of the CCA Rules then proper order is passed regarding his salary and other emoluments for that period which can be forfeited partially or otherwise as it depends upon the seriousness of the charges provided. The suspension order is not executed to be a speaking order, because all that it should indicate is, that either some inquiry is pending or under contemplation. So far as the change of the district head quarter of the petitioner causing great hardship to him is concerned, this Court is not competent to fix the head quarters of the petitioner during the pendency of the inquiry and suspension period after taking notice of the personal inconvenience. That is a matter, on which the suspending authority can be moved by the petitioner and, if a proper case is made out, hardship can be considered as a good ground for changing the head-quarters in a given case. It is well known that the jurisdiction of this Court is only limited to the error of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and even though, the court tries to do justice by grating relief in proper cases, it is not possible to go so far to usurp normal administrative functions of the State functionaries and decide the case of transfers and fixation of the head quarters, during the suspension period.
(3.) WITH the above observations, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.;