CW 14116/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.14116/2008 Banwari Lal Meena Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 19/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Banwari Sharma, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.16/10/08 (Ann.10) besides order (Ann.9) sanctioning prosecution for offence U/s 409, IPC in criminal case under FIR-15/08 registered on 18/01/08 against petitioner at police station Sadar (Sikar). While holding post of Sub-Inspector (Transport), petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry U/r 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”) vide order dt. 19/02/08 (Ann.4), which pendente inquiry, was revoked vide order dt.15/07/08 (Ann.7). However, criminal case was duly instituted against petitioner for offence U/s 409, IPC and after police investigation, sanction for his prosecution was granted vide order (Ann.9) – as a consequence whereof, he has been placed under suspension vide order dt.16/10/08 (Ann.10) impugned herein. CW 14116/08 //2// Counsel submits that the very charge imputed against petitioner vide charge sheet dt. 23/11/07 (Ann.2) from material on record is not made out; as such holding disciplinary inquiry in instant case will be nothing but an empty formality while it would cause cause great prejudice to him; and that apart, sanction for prosecution (Ann.9) is nothing but a clear reproduction of contents of First information report No.15/08 and there is no application of mind of the authority granting sanctioned under order impugned. Counsel further submits that earlier petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt.19/02/08 (Ann.4), which pendente inquiry, was revoked vide order dt.15/07/08 (Ann.7); later order dt.16/10/08 (Ann.10) placing him under suspension for self-same charges in the facts & circumstances of instant case is arbitrary and without application of mind; hence cannot be said to be in consonance with R.13 of CCA Rules, 1958. None of contentions urged by Counsel is having any merit. As regards charges imputed against petitioner, for which memo of allegations has been served (Ann.3), prima facie disclosing cause of misconduct committed and disciplinary inquiry is pending where the material available CW 14116/08 //3// with the petitioner can always be considered by inquiring/disciplinary authority with regard to his alleged misconduct; but no opinion can be expressed at this stage. As regards later suspension order, suffice it to say that earlier petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation with disciplinary inquiry; and since criminal case has been instituted for offence U/s 409, IPC; and after completion of police investigation and application of mind taking note of material on record, the authority granted sanction for prosecution and simultaneously considered it proper to place him under suspension because of subsequent development having taken place vide order of suspension (Ann.10) in exercise of powers U/r 13 of CCA Rules. It is true that power of suspension U/r 13 of CCA Rules should always be judiciously exercised. But, in instant case, when the authority took decision after due application of mind taking note of material on record, it considered to issue sanction of prosecution and placing him under suspension, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or in violation of R.13 of CCA Rules. As regards contention about sanction of prosecution (Ann.9) being mere reproduction of contents of FIR, suffice it to say that sanction CW 14116/08 //4// for prosecution contained allegations and reference of material collected in course of police investigation – after application of mind taking note, the competent authority took decision to grant sanction for prosecution which certainly is in consonance with S.97, CrPC. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/14116CW08-1912.doc