Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner challenges his suspension on 11.06.2015 under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter "the CCA Rules").
(2.) MR . Rajvir Sharma, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the entire work relating to Canal and Bridges of Pipad Medium Irrigation Project, Jhalawar was completed prior to the petitioner being posted as Executive Engineer thereto on 29.10.2014. It has been submitted that the petitioner only made payment of XIII and final running bill to the Contractor as prepared by the Assistant Engineer on 21.07.2014. Thus no wrong doing or irregularities can be attributed to the petitioner either with regard to the quality of the construction work or for wrongful payment. It has been further submitted that the order of suspension dated 11.06.2015 purports to be in the exercise of powers under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules but is vitiated on account of fact that the petitioner was at the time neither subject to any criminal proceedings, nor does the order of suspension state that a department inquiry was then contemplated against him or pending. Mr. Sanjeev Singhal, appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy inasmuch as the petitioner has recourse to an application for revocation of his suspension under Section 13(5) of the CCA Rules or an appeal under Rule 22 thereof. It has been further submitted that since the passing of the order of suspension dated 11.06.2015, the Chief Engineer of the Water Resources Department has recommended the issue of charge -sheet to the petitioner specifically with regard to the improper payments made by the petitioner to the Contractor under the XIII and final running bill to an extent of Rs. 12,11,849/ -. It has been submitted that it transpired on inspection by the higher authorities that the quality of work at the left main Canal of Pipad Medium Irrigation Project, Jhalawar for which the payment was made by the petitioner, was substandard leading to revenue loss to the State. It has been submitted that the petitioner had certified the quality of work of the left main canal aforesaid even though the XIII and final bill was prepared by Assistant Engineer on 21.07.2014. The petitioner then cannot escape from responsibility and is to be so charge -sheeted. Counsel for the respondents further pointed out that as per the Department norms, the payment of running bills is to be treated as advance payment to the contractor and before making the payment of final bill -as done by the petitioner, work had to be checked by the Executive Engineer In -Charge at the relevant time and if deficiency is then found it was to be rectified by the Contractor before making of the final payment to him. The petitioner had instead, in the XIII and final running bill, certified the quality of the work executed by the Contractor despite it being inferior quality as found on inspection by the Higher authorities. A decision has been taken to proceed against the petitioner by resort to Rule 16 of CCA Rules and the charge -sheet has now been proposed on 04.08.2015 by the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department to the Department of Personnel.
(3.) HEARD . Considered.;