{ 1 } S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7001/2007. (BRIJ BIHARI MATHUR VS. STATE & OTHERS) DATE OF ORDER : 28.05.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave for the respondents. For an incident of the year 1997, sanction was granted by the State Government vide order dated 10.08.2001 to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1988”). Consequent thereto, the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department by the order impugned dated 26.07.2003 placed the petitioner under suspension. An appeal preferred as per the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) giving challenge to the order aforesaid, came to be rejected by the order dated 17.01.2006 with observation that the suspension cannot be revoked till pendency of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. { 2 } While challenging the order placing the petitioner under suspension and also the order of affirmance passed by the appellate authority, the contention of the petitioner is that he is facing the trial since 2001 and the same shall take a long time in its finalization, therefore, the continuation of suspension is arbitrary. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that a prima facie case for prosecuting the petitioner under the Act of 1988 was found by the State Government and, therefore, he was placed under suspension. The suspension is required to be continued till the outcome of the trial to which the petitioner is subjected. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the Appointing Authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government may place a government servant under suspension, if a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated against the government servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. The government servant placed under suspension is entitled for subsistence allowance as per the { 3 } provisions of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services, 1951. The subsistence allowance is subjected to revision at definite intervals. In general, the exigencies in which an order of suspension is desirable may be: (1) the cases where the continuation of the government servant in office will prejudice the investigation, trial or any enquiry. (2) where the continuation in office is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office where the public servant is working. (3) where the continuation in office will be against the wider public interest, and (4) where a prima facie case is made out against the government servant that would justify his prosecution or the departmental disciplinary action. The order placing an incumbent under suspension being an interlocutory measure is not required to be interfered by the courts, however, judicial review of the same is { 4 } permissible, if the suspension is in violation of a Statute or is outcome of extraneous considerations or is highly unjust and arbitrary. In the present matter, the sanction was granted by the Government of Rajasthan to prosecute the petitioner only on being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against him, that warrants his prosecution under the Act of 1988, thus, the suspension was not at all indesirable. However, it is not in dispute that the incident relating to which the petitioner is facing prosecution relates to the year 1997, the sanction for prosecuting the petitioner was granted in the year 2001 and the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 2003. The issue before the Court is the need and effect of the suspension till now. This Court in Prem Prakash Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2005(9) RDD – 3962 (Raj.) held as follows: “It is well settled that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person but is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. The proceedings so initiated should be completed expeditiously. In event the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal trial, { 5 } as the case may be do not reach to their logical consequence within a reasonable period then it is required that the appointing authority or the authority competent to place public servant under suspension should review the decision to continue such servant under suspension.” In Ashutosh Dashora vs. State of Rajasthan & others (SBCWP No.473/2007) decided on 29.04.2008, while dealing with the continuation of suspension during pendency of a criminal trial, this Court 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 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 { 6 } 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.” The petitioner is facing suspension since 2003 and it is not definite as to when the trial shall reach at an end. A suspension for an indefinite period is certainly arbitrary. The appointing authority is always required to review the continuation of suspension wherever or whenever there is a prolonged one. The stand of the respondents in reply to the writ petition is that the suspension is being continued in view of a decision of the Government of Rajasthan; to continue all government servants under suspension till disposal of the criminal case by the trial court. I am of the considered opinion that the suspension cannot be made absolutely dependent to the decision of the trial court. A statutory discretion is vested with { 7 } the appointing authority to place an incumbent under suspension and to revoke the same, if that is required . No order of suspension can be passed in mechanical manner and no government servant can be continued under suspension for an indefinite period without application of mind. The appointing authority must review its order placing an incumbent under suspension at definite intervals of time. The appointing authority must examine the need of continuation of suspension, if the suspension is not warranted, then it should be revoked. To avoid any interference of the government servant, it may be desirable to transfer the civil servant at a distant place instead of continuing suspension for indefinite period. The respondents in the present matter are continuing the petitioner under suspension from last about five years under a general mandate of the Government of Rajasthan. The general mandate is only to place an incumbent under suspension, if a prima facie case is found against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but it nowhere restricts the appointing authority to reconsider and revoke the suspension, if that is not required. Accordingly, this petition for writ is disposed of with a direction to the appointing authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner for further continuance of suspension within a period { 8 } of sixty days from today, if the competent authority is satisfied that no purpose shall be served by continuing the petitioner under suspension, then the same be revoked. If in opinion of the competent authority the continuance of the suspension is necessary, it shall pass a speaking and reasoned order to do so. No order to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/