1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3459/2007 Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 2 nd September, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. V.K.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Boob, for the respondents. .... By order dated 27.12.2004, passed by the Collector (Land Records), Hanumangarh, the petitioner was placed under suspension as he was trapped by a team of Anti Corruption Bureau in a matter relating to the corruption in service. While assailing validity of the aforesaid, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector (Land Records), Hanumangarh was having no authority to place the petitioner under suspension as he is neither the appointing authority nor a person to whom appointing authority of the petitioner is subordinate or otherwise empowered to place the petitioner under suspension. It is asserted that the petitioner is a Patwari in Irrigation Department and, therefore, only the authority of the Irrigation Department could have suspended the petitioner. 2 The respondents in reply to the writ petition stated that though the petitioner is a Patwari in Department of Irrigation, however, the incident of trap occurred on 30.10.2004 and on that day the petitioner was working in Revenue Department, therefore, the Collector, Hanumangarh rightly passed the order of suspension. Heard counsel for the parties. It is true that on 30.10.2004 the petitioner was working as Patwari in Department of Revenue i.e. within the administrative control of the Collector (Land Records), Hanumangarh, however, by an order dated 15.12.2004 the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of the Department of Irrigation. The petitioner after 17.12.2004, for all purposes, became an employee of the Department of Irrigation. ON 27.12.2004 the Collector (Land Records), Hanumangarh was having no administrative control or authority to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner or to place him under suspension while exercising powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The order impugned, therefore, is apparently bad. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition for writ succeeds and, therefore, the same is 3 allowed. The order impugned dated 27.12.2004 placing the petitioner under suspension is hereby quashed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.