Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition seeks to challenge the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 22.12.2005.
(2.) PETITIONER was working as Agriculture Supervisor in the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The real elder brother of the petitioner Bhanwar Lal passed away on 24.8.1981. Since he had died intestate, according to the petitioner, he performed his last rite and even the turban was tied on his head as per the customs prevalent in his community. Wife of the petitioner's elder brother started living with her parents and then there arose certain disputes between them with regard to partition of the ancestral properties in so far as share of Bhanwar Lal was concerned. His wife filed two civil suits in Sambhar Lake in the year 2003. However, no interim order of injunction was passed in the civil suits. She thereafter filed two criminal complaints in the Court of Magistrate at Jobner, District Jaipur which were sent to Police Station for investigation and were registered as FIR No. 148/2003 Under Section 420, 471 & 192 IPC and FIR No. 180/03 Under Section 420, 467 & 468 IPC. Shri Arvind Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was mechanically placed under suspension by the respondents on the premise that police eventually filed challan against the petitioner in the criminal cases which have taken cognizance of by the Court in both the matters on 19.1.2004. It was contented that the dispute essentially is of civil nature which has been converted into criminal one and that the petitioner has a valid defence to offer. The trial of the aforesaid criminal cases is in any case likely to take long. None of the alleged offences involves moral turpitude. Even though the cognizance was taken about four and half years ago the trial court has even not framed charges against the petitioner so far. The petitioner could not be placed under suspension even by invoking deeming clause because in one of the cases, he was granted anticipatory bail and in the other case upon arrest, he was granted bail by the Magistrate on the same day. Learned Counsel referred to the Circular of the Government in its Department of Personnel dated 10.1.2001, especially to that part of the Circular, which provides that Officers should not be placed under suspension in routine manner and that in matters of criminal cases, suspension should be resorted to only in cases involving moral turpitude, embezzlement of funds or some grievous offences pending investigation or trail. Learned Counsel also relied on the division bench judgment of this Court in Ashok Gaur v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. RLR 1987 (2) 63.
(3.) SHRI B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that Government has the right to place the petitioner under suspension in view of the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules of 1958 which inter alia empowers the appointing authority or any authority to which the government servant is subordinate or empowered by the government in that behalf, to place him under suspension where a criminal case is under investigation or is pending trial against him. Learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that two FIRs were registered against the petitioner and in both of them, the police has filed challan against him and cognizance has been taken by the trial court. In one case, the petitioner was arrested on 24.11.2003, although it is another matter that he was enlarged on bail, but factual foundation of the order is not disputed even by this petitioner. The competence of the appointing authority in placing the petitioner under suspension, in this view of the matter, cannot be questioned.;