VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the suspension order dtd. 16. 5. 2005 (Annex. 4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the charge-sheet dtd. 16. 6. 2005 (Annex. 5) issued to the petitioner may also be quashed and set aside and the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner may also be dropped and the respondents may be directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner as payable to him.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Accounts Officer, he was placed under suspension vide order dtd. 16. 5. 2005 (Annex. 4) on account of pendency of departmental enquiry. The petitioner was also served with a charge-sheet on 16. 6. 2005 containing six charges against the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order of suspension as well as initiation of departmental enquiry against him. In this writ petition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not at all responsible for realisation of the cheques or collection of cheques. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised contention on merits of the each charges and submitted that no prima facie charge is disclosed against the petitioner, therefore, suspension of the petitioner is not justified. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that non-supply of the material documents in the enquiry also vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings and it is well settled law that a person cannot be penalized unheard and more particularly, when the petitioner is asking for the documents time and again and the respondents are sitting tight over the documents and are not making available the copies of the documents to the petitioner. In that view of the matter also, the impugned order of suspension as well as impugned departmental enquiry is in utter Breach of principles of natural justice as well as full of malafides. Before proceeding further, the legal position in respect of suspension has to be seen. The power of suspension has been provided under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958, which reads as under: "13. Suspension:- (1) The Appointing Authority or any other 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 authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority, the circumstances in which the order was made. "
(3.) THE general principle for suspension is that an employer can suspend an employee pending and enquiry into his conduct and on this general principle, the Government like any other employer, would have a right to suspend a public servant in one or two ways. It may suspend any public servant pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal proceedings. This is called interim suspension. It is settled law that normally when an appointing authority of the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct of defecation of founds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority or on application of mind by the disciplinary authority. It may also be stated that an order of suspension during the pendency of a departmental enquiry is ordinarily not interfered by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution until and unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the order has been malafide passed or that the appointing authority has not passed the order of suspension. ;