- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order (Annex.P/5) dated 20.9.2001, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of a prosecution sanction having been accorded against him for the offence under Section 13(1)(e)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as for quashing and declaring illegal, the circular dated 10.8.2001 issued by the State Government, whereby mandatory directions were issued to the concerned departmental heads for placing under suspension such employees, who were trapped red-handed while accepting bribe or against whom prosecution sanction is accorded for the offences of corruption, dowry death, murder, rape or other offences of moral turpitude and further not to reinstate such employees, till the matter is pending before the competent court and the employee is acquitted. Further, prayer has been made in the writ petition for granting annual grade increments and selection grade to the petitioner from the date of accrual.
(2.) Shri Ankur Mathur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, at the outset stated that during the intervening period, while the instant writ petition was pending, various reliefs prayed for, have already been extended to the petitioner and he has already superannuated and thus, only an academic question survives in the instant writ petition regarding the legality and validity of the State Government's circular dated 10.8.2001. Learned counsel submitted that the notification (Annex.4), whereby a mandate has been issued to the departmental heads for placing the delinquents faced with the situations described in the circular under suspension, is grossly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional as the same encroaches upon the discretion conferred upon the appropriate authority under the statutory rules. Thus, he submitted that the circular deserves to be quashed and struck down.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this Court considered the effect of an order of suspension in the case of Shaukat Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,1992 WLR(Raj) 855 and held that though technically and legally, suspension is not a punishment but in ground reality, it is worse than a punishment. It results in the humiliation of an employee not only before the members of the family but also in the eyes of the world at large. On the strength of the aforesaid observations made in Shaukat Ali's case, learned counsel urged that the discretion conferred upon the disciplinary authority to place the employee under suspension as per Rule 13 of the CCA Rules should not be fettered by administrative circulars as it amounts to taking away discretionary powers conferred by a statute. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp3 SCC 217 and urged that executive instructions can be issued when there exists no statutory legislation on the subject and also to supplement the existing statutory provisions when those provisions are silent. He also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp3 SCC 451 and urged that statutory rules cannot be whittled down by an executive order. Laying stress upon Article 162 of the Constitution of India, he submitted that the executive power of the State extends to the matters with respect to which, the State legislature has powers to make law.;