CW 2462/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2462/2010 Ratti Ram Meena Versus State & Ors. Date of Order : 22/02/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vijay Pathak, for petitioner Petitioner while serving as Patwari was placed under suspension by Additional District Collector, Hindaun vide order dt.18/01/2010 (Ann.5) under contemplation of inquiry and the order has been sent to the competent authority (Collector (land Revenue) Karauli) for confirmation as provided U/r 13 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”). Counsel submits that petitioner had proceeded on medical leave due to his illness in support of which sickness certificate was furnished alongwith application (Ann.1); as such was unable to attend election duty but the authority after alleging it to be misconduct, has placed him under suspension, and observed that the order of suspension is being sent for confirmation to the competent authority under CCA Rules. Counsel submits that Deputy Collector Hindaun is not a competent authority, inasmuch CW 2462/10 //2// as no opportunity of hearing was afforded before placing him under suspension. In the opinion of this Court, the submission made is without merit for the reason that it is not a reuirement under law to serve a notice notice or to provide opportunity of hearing while taking decision to place an employee under suspension U/r 13 of CCA Rules, 1958 and it can always be passed if required on contemplation/pendency of judicial/disciplinary under CCA Rules. As regards the order being passed by Deputy Collector, suffice it to say that R.13 of CCA Rules provides that if an order is passed by the authority lower to the competent authority, it shall report to the competent authority about circumstances, in which the order was being passed. In the instant case, competent authority has been apprised of the order impugned while seeking approval, as is apparent from an endorsement made while sending a copy of the order impugned to the Collector (Land Revenue) Karauli; and it is not the case of petitioner that the authority competent has either declined or rejected granting approval of action for placing him under suspension. However, this Court finds no justification to interfere. CW 2462/10 //3// As regards submission made by Counsel to make representation for review of the order of suspension, it is always open for an employee to do so, if so advised, and it will be for the authority to take decision U/r 13 (5) of CCA Rules. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/ 2462CW10Fb22.doc