CWP 4248/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4248/2008 CP Borana Versus State & Anr. Date of Order ::: 05/05/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Dinesh Yadav, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.03/07/06 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension. Petitioner while working as Manager, Jaitaran Kriya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti Ltd Jaitaran (Pali), was entrapped by Anti-Corruption Bureau on 21/06/06, for which crime on FIR-175/06 (Ann.1) was registered against petitioner for offences U/Ss 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with S.120-B, IPC – taking note whereof, competent authority took decision to place him under suspension in exercise of powers U/R 13 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, vide order dt.03/07/06 (Ann.3). Counsel submits that as per Circular dt. 10/08/01 (Ann.2) issued by respondents, only in those matters where delinquent has been caught red-handed in trap case can straight way be placed under suspension and in all other cases, there should be prior sanction of prosecution while placing delinquent under suspension whereas CWP 4248/08 //2// incident of trap in instant case is of 21/06/06 and sanction of prosecution was granted vide order dt.24/09/07 which in view of order dt. 28/02/08 (Ann.9) of this Court in CWP-214/08 does not hold good and deserves to be set aside. Counsel further submits that against complainant at whose behest, FIR in question was registered, prior to it, petitioner had also lodged FIR – in retaliation whereof, criminal case in question has been registered which has not been looked into by respondents while passing order of suspension impugned. It appears that earlier petitioner assailed order of suspension in CWP-6274/07 and while deciding it vide order dt.31/08/07 (Ann.5) this Court observed that representation filed be decided within one month. That apart, order granting sanction for prosecution by competent authority was separately assailed at principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur, by way of CWP- 214/08, which was decided vide order dt.28/02/08 (Ann.9) directing respondents to objectively consider representation of petitioner as regards sanction for prosecution. It appears that representation of petitioner was already decided by the authority vide order dt.29/12/07 (Ann.8). An order of suspension of a government CWP 4248/08 //3// servant does not put an end to his service under the Government and he continues to be a member of the service in spite of the order of suspension; and is not permitted to work. However, during period of suspension, he is paid only subsistence allowance, which is normally less than salary and allowances thereon which he would have been entitled for if not placed under suspension. R.13(1)(b) of CCA Rules empowers appointing authority to place a Government servant under suspension against whom a criminal case is under investigation or trial. As regards instant case, FIR for offences U/Ss 7, 13(1)(d) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with S. 120-B, IPC for a trap of 21/06/06 was registered on 26/06/06 (Ann.1) – pendente investigation whereof, powers were exercised by competent authority U/r 13(1)(b) of CCA Rules for placing delinquent petitioner under suspension vide order (Ann.3) dt.03/07/06. No opinion can be expressed on the merits of allegations levelled in the FIR or material on record, as to whether the allegations are true or false as against delinquency of petitioner. In opinion of this Court, passing order of suspension impugned against petitioner is well within R.13(1)(b) of CCA Rules and the Government authority has not CWP 4248/08 //4// committed any error in passing order impugned. This Court does not find any infirmity or manifest error in judicial exercise of powers in taking decision for placing him under suspension impugned. As regards submission made about Circular dt.10/08/01 (Ann.2), suffice is to say that these are guidelines available for competent authority while taking decision and even if order placing under suspension being not in terms of guidelines that will not put the action to be bad, unless it is shown to be violative of R.13 of Rules. Even otherwise, as per Cl.(1) of Circular dt.10/08/01, in trap cases, employees can be placed under suspension. As per FIR registered against him allegedly for accepting bribe of Rs.60,000/-, petitioner too was entrapped – reference whereof has been made in order of suspension impugned. As regards submission made about having criminal case registered against complainant prior to the trap in question, that cannot be made basis for any malice imputed. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/4248CW08-0505sus.doc