1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7412/2007 Ramesh Chandra Vs. R.T.A.D.C.F. & Ors. Date of Order :: 5.11.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr Tribhuvan Gupta, for the petitioner/s. Mr Vijay Bishnoi, for the respondents. ... By an order dated 29.6.2005 the petitioner was placed under suspension contemplating disciplinary proceedings. The suspension made under the order aforesaid was revoked by the Commissioner Tribal Area Development Department under an order dated 25.3.2006 while keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending. The disciplinary authority completed disciplinary action against he petitioner under an order dated 28.12.2006 by subjecting him with a penalty of the stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, on being found guilty for negligence during duties. It is pertinent to note that for the allegations the petitioner faced disciplinary action a criminal case was also lodged by the Anti Corruption Bureau and the prosecution filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner on 3.9.2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 407, 409 and 120B IPC. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan Department of Tribal Area Development under an order dated 5.10.2007 2 instructed the Commissioner, Tribal Area Development Department, Udaipur to place all incumbents under suspension facing criminal trial for the offences relating to corruption. In pursuant to the letter aforesaid the Managing Direction of the Rajasthan Tribal Area development Cooperative Federation Ltd. Suspended the petitioner by keeping his Headquarters at Udaipur. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid dated 3.10.2007 this petition for writ is preferred. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner as per Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 as adopted by the Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. it is for the appointing authority to examine the circumstances warranting the suspension of the employees concerned but in the instant matter the appointing authority simply acted upon an instruction given by the Government of Rajasthan, thus, it is a case of a abdication of powers. In reply to the writ petition the stand of the respondents is as follows: “That in reply to the averments contained in paras No.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the writ petition it is submitted that since police has filed chargesheet against the petitioner on 3.9.2005 in respect of offences under Sections 420, 407, 409 and 120B IPC and the matter is pending before the competent criminal Court, the answering respondents have suspended the petitioner vide 3 order dated 3.11.2007 as per the directions given by the Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Department vide letter dated 5.10.2007(Annex.P6). It is submitted that there is no illegality in the action of the answering respondents and the action of the answering respondents is in conformity with the directions issued by the respondent No.3. From the contents of para 7 referred above it is apparent that the appointing authority simply acted upon the letter dated 5.10.2007 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Tribal Development without application of mind by the appointing authority. It is well settled that it is for the appointing authority or the authority competent to place an incumbent under suspension after considering need for that. In the instant matter at the first instance the petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.6.2005. The charge-sheet for adjudication of criminal charges against the petitioner was filed on 3.9.2005. Subsequent thereto suspension of the petitioner was revoked by the competent authority on 25.5.2006, as such, by adequate application of mind on 25.5.2006 the competent authority was of the view that suspension of the petitioner is not warranted. By the order impugned dated 3.11.2007 the petitioner was placed under suspension only for the reason that certain directions were issued by the Government of Rajasthan. From pleadings of the case and the documents available on record it is apparent that no application of mind was made by the competent authority while placing the petitioner 4 under suspension on 3.11.2007. He simply acted upon the instructions given by the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner is an employee of a Co-operative Society, upon which government is having supervisory control. Such control does not mean absolute and unfettered control. The competent authority of the petitioner's employer should have applied its own mind before placing him under suspension. As a matter of fact at one point of time the authority competent considered entire issue and revoked suspension vide the order dated 25.5.2006. After filing charge sheet in a criminal case, the competent authority should have examined the issue regarding suspension at its own merits, instead of complying with the directions given by the Government ipse-dixit. The suspension of the petitioner under the order dated 3.11.2007 is certainly abdication of powers, as such that is bad in the eye of law. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 3.11.2007 stands quashed. No order as to costs. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '