VYAS, J. - (1.) BY the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the suspension order dated 30. 5. 2005 (Annexure 10) and F. I. R. dated 2. 5. 2005 (Annexure 1) may be quashed and set aside.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the instant petition are that petitioner - Babu Singh Dhariwal was posted as Assistant Engineer, CAD Mohangarh Sub-Division 4, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP), Mohangarh, District- Jaisalmer. At that time, a complaint was received by the Antri-Corruption Bureau (ACB) that the petitioner, including Shri P. B. Mathur, Executive Engineer, and his companions, without completing construction work of Manuhar Minor issued a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Contractor. On this information, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) made a search and ultimately lodged a First Information Report (Annexure 1) against the petitioner- AEN, Shri P. B. Mathur, XEN and Shri Ramesh Chandra Joshi, JEN respectively. It is alleged by the petitioner in this petitioner that the construction work was legally done by the Contractor and Cement and Bazari were brought and labour work was done. Thereafter, research of soil for manufacturing of bricks was done. After satisfaction of the work, a Cheque amounting to Rs. 1,92,166/- was issued, which was received back as dishonoured from the Bank. It is averred by the petitioner in the instant petition that he submitted a representation dated 4. 6. 2005 to the Additional Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur that all things have been done wrongly and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He, therefore, submitted that the investigation may be got done by any Senior Officer and a Final Report (Negative Report) may be issued. It is further averred by the petitioner that by order dated 2. 5. 2005 (Annexure 8), the Additional Chief Engineer, CAD, IGNP, Jaisalmer constituted a 3 member Committee to inspect the site and to submit report within three days. In compliance with the order dated 2. 5. 2005, the said Committee inspected the site and submitted its report dated 5. 5. 2005 (Annexure 9 ). The petitioner claims that the report was submitted in his favour. But, despite that, the Deputy Secretary, CAD, vide order dated 30. 5. 2005 (Annexure 10) has suspended him along with one Ramesh Chandra Joshi, JEN. Being aggrieved by the suspension order dated 30. 5. 2005 (Annexure 10) and F. I. R. dated 25. 2. 2005 (Annexure 1), the petitioner has preferred the instant petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare perusal of the order dated 30. 5. 2005 (Annexure 10) reveals that it has been passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of CAD, on the ground that the petitioner was found to be indulged prima facie in making illegal payment of construction work. He submitted that the petitioner and one Shri Ramesh Chandra Joshi - JEN have been suspended, but the Head Incharge of Department - Shri P. B. Mathur has not been suspended, through his name does find place in the F. I. R.
(3.) IT is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for launching prosecution against him, the necessary sanction for prosecution is required by the Competent Authority and further, no challan can be filed, without sanction and, according to the learned counsel, on account of registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, the suspension order cannot be passed. He submitted that the petitioner never demanded any bribe from anybody. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1958'), the Competent Authority has only jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension, in the event of contemplation of the enquiry against him or in the event of pendency of the criminal case. The Competent Authority of the petitioner is the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereas the order dated 30. 5. 2005 (Annexure 10) has been passed by the Deputy Secretary, CAD and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the order of suspension passed by the Depty Secretary is without jurisdiction. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension has been passed in arbitrary and hot haste manner and without application of mind. It has been passed without any jurisdiction and thus, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ;