P.P.NAOLEKAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged in this petition the order of suspension passed against him by order dated 6.5.92 (Annex. 4) on account of pendency of a cirminal case Under Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 120B and Section 420 I.P.C. It is the petitioner's case that there is no reasonable ground made out for passing the order of suspension against the petitioner. The order of suspension is the result of non -application of mind to the facts of the case and is arbitrary.
(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the charge framed on consideration of all the material against the petitioner in a criminal case and the trial has reached to the stage of prosecution evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that these is no material on record to pass order of suspension against the petitioner. Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, lays down that the competent authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any authority empowered by the Govt. in this behalf may place a Govt. servant under suspension. A Govt. servant may be placed under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, or trial, or a Govt. servant is detained in custody, whether oh a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours. On minute scrutiny of rule 13, it is manifest that it is not obligatory on the part of the Appointing Authority to place a Govt. servant under suspension in the contingencies referred hereinabove. It is left to the discretion of the Appointing Authority to place a Govt. servant under suspension or not. The Appointing Authority has to. exercise power cautiously and after applying his mind to all the facts emerging in the case and placed before him. The suspension is not a matter of rule because there is a criminal case pending or the enquiry. But if there is material on record to show that the powers have been exercised by the Appointing Authority on appreciation of the facts of the case, then the discretion exercised by him, cannot be said to be without any authority of law and is an arbitrary exercise of power. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has been suspended on account of the criminal case pending against him wherein a charge has been framed against the petitioner. The Magistrate is required to frame on prima facie satisfaction, charge, after perusal of the report Under Section 173 Cr.P.C., statement recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other documents attached with the record, on the prima fade case for framing of the charge. In this case, when the charge has been framed, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner. The charge is in respect of offence Under Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 120B and Section 420 I.P.C. In the writ petition, I would not like to go into the merits of the case as any finding recorded by this Court, will prejudicially affect either of the parties. It is sufficient at this stage to find out where there is material on record for exercise of the discretion by the Appointing Authority for putting the petitioner under suspension. Of course, the authority cannot exercise the power arbitrarily or mala fide but once the discretion is exercised and it is based on material, this Court shall not interfere with the order of suspension passed in exercise of the discretion vested in the authority, particularly so when the suspension is not a punishment imposed on the Gout, servant. The order of suspension passed by the authority is based on framing of the charge in the criminal case and cannot be said to be without any basis. There is no force in the writ petition.
(3.) WRIT petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.;