1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2304/2008 Laxman Ram Panwar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 20th May, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S.N.Trivedi, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, for the respondents. .... On being granted sanction for prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, the Government of Rajasthan, while exercising powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, placed the petitioner under suspension by an order dated 13.3.2008 and the same is under challenge in the instant petition for writ. This Court in the case of Ashutosh Dashora v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition No.473/2007, decided on 29.4.2008, held as follows:- “The suspension from service is made normally with a view to avoid apprehension of tampering with the evidence including the witnesses. Suspension may also be warranted, if the allegations against the government servant are so serious that his retention during pendency of the inquiry/trial may shake public confidence in 2 the system. In the instant matter though the allegations against the petitioner are of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but from record it reveals that so far as the alleged involvement of the petitioner is concerned, that is with regard to supervisory negligence. In every case, where the government servant is facing trial for criminal charges, including the charges relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, suspension is not must. The competent authority, before placing an incumbent under suspension, must consider its necessity. The unwarranted suspension of a government servant not only deprives the employer from utilizing his services but also put a burden on public fund in the form of payment of subsistence allowance. The Government must review the suspension of the government servant time to time, and if it is found that the suspension is not required, it should be revoked.” It is also pertinent to note that the incident, relating to which sanction for prosecution is granted, pertains to the Department of Panchayati Raj, whereas the petitioner is having his lien with the Department of Irrigation. The petitioner being not in Panchayati Raj Department is not in a position to tamper with the evidence available against him. The allegation against the petitioner also is only to the extent of supervisory negligence, therefore, I do not find any useful purpose in keeping the petitioner under suspension. 3 Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 13.3.2008, placing the petitioner under suspension, is quashed. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.