M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 9th June, 2015, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension and further challenge is made to the order dated 10th July, 2015, by which representation of the petitioner was rejected.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Regulation 9 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees (Disciplinary Action and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short "the Regulations of 1976"), the order of suspension can be passed only when an inquiry into grave charges of suspected disobedience, malpractice or misappropriation is contemplated or is pending or during inquiry. It is also when continuance of employee is considered to be detrimental to the interest of the Board. The case in hand is not such where any of the grounds given under Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 1976 for suspension are made out. The petitioner is one who was asked to undertake the work of construction of the houses at Kishangarh. Since area in question was rocky and hilly thus foundation was laid on the uneven surface at certain places. The technical approval of the work was taken from the competent authority followed by execution of the work. The petitioner has now been charge sheeted alleging incurring of extra expenditure for construction of the houses in ignorance of the fact that technical approval was taken before execution of work. In the background aforesaid, charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to be grave of suspected disobedience, malpractice or misappropriation. The working of the petitioner cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the Board. In view of above, order of suspension deserves to be quashed.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for respondent -Rajasthan Housing Board submits that charges against the petitioner are grave in nature. He had executed the work with heavy expenditure without financial approval. The Housing Board make registration of the houses in favour of applicant on fixed rates. The variation in the rates cannot be made which may change it substantially. In the instant case, the petitioner incurred extra amount in construction as upto plinth level itself, the sanctioned amount was incurred to the extent of 80% to 85% or so. In view of above, Housing Board had to make curtailment in the construction so as to match the cost published in the Booklet. The petitioner executed the work without financial sanction before payment. It was found to be a case of grave nature of suspected disobedience and malpractice on the part of the petitioner. The charge sheet has already been served on the petitioner and now the inquiry officer is proceeding in the matter. Thus at this stage, interference in the order of suspension may not be made.;