[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1822/2008 GANGARAM MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date: 17/09/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. S.N. Kumawat for the petitioner. Mr. Harshvardhan Nandwana, Dy. GA for the State. **** By way of this writ petition, the petitioner prayed to quash and set aside the order impugned dated 25.02.2008 (Annexure-11), whereby he has been put under suspension in lieu of criminal case pending against him for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC. The petitioner has also challenged the Circular dated 14.12.2000 as well as the letter dated 28.1.2007 issued by the respondent No.3, the Superintendent of Police-I, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that trap was conducted and during trap money was recovered from the possession of one Anil Kumar Sharma, LDC. During investigation, it was observed that the money was taken by Anil Kumar Sharma under the instruction of the petitioner for not lodging any case against the complainant. [2] 3. In this regard, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after a period of two months of the incident, the petitioner was suspended vide order impugned dated 25.02.2008 without any involvement in the case. It is further submitted that no money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, on the contrary, the petitioner was not present at the time when the trap was being conducted. Thus, the petitioner was remotely not involved in the offence committed by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, LDC. 4. It is also contended that the petitioner even after lodging of the FIR under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, was promoted and transferred. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has wrongly been suspended vide order impugned dated 25.02.2008. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Lal Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001(1) WLC (Raj.) 196, wherein the Division Bench has held that “Suspension not necessary in every case of pendency or contemplation of disciplinary proceedings- Offence alleged against petitioner falling only under S. 323 [3] of Penal Code, committed in his private individual capacity- Petitioner arrested and bailed out, though after remaining in custody for more than 48 hours- Suspension of petitioner victimisation- Suspension quashed.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred the letter dated 12.09.2008 issued by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Office of the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, wherein it has been stated that at the time of trap the petitioner was not present and no money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the matter was referred to the Government for passing appropriate orders. 7. He further referred an interim order dated 30.05.2008 granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4851/2008- Ram Pal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., whereby the operation of the impugned suspension order dated 06.05.2008 (Annexure-10) was stayed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has challenged the impugned suspension order dated 25.02.2007 which has been passed on account of involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case. It is submitted that Anti Corruption [4] Bureau received a complaint of demanding bribe and after getting the same verified, the trap proceeding was conducted in which the petitioner was arrested and it was found that he has received Rs. 10,000/- and a criminal case FIR No. 282/2007 was also registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 9. As per the policy decision and Circular dated 10.08.2001, after considering the anti corruption case registered against the petitioner and after verifying the facts, the Government has exercised its powers on the basis of sufficient material available on the record and the petitioner has rightly been suspended vide order impugned dated 25.02.2008. 10. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the impugned suspension order dated 25.02.2008, FIR submitted along with the reply of the State and also perused the judgment and circulars referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner including the material placed along with the writ petition. 11. Although at the time of trap proceedings, the petitioner was not present, as is evident from the factual report given by the Additional Commissioner (Excise) and no money was recovered [5] from his possession, but during investigation as per the statement it reveals that money was demanded by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, LDC as the petitioner assured the complainant not to lodge any case against him for illegal transportation of foreign made Indian liquor from Haryana to Rajasthan and demanded Rs. 20,000/-. 12. The judgment rendered in the case of Bhanwar Lal Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the case which was before the Division Bench, there was case registered between the private party and the petitioner with regard to offence under Section 323 IPC, whereas in the present case, a case has been registered after the trap was conducted by the Bureau of Anti Corruption and FIR was also lodged wherein the petitioner has been charged with the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC. 13. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an interim order granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4851/2008, whereby the operation of the impugned suspension order has been stayed. [6] 14. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the aforesaid writ petition, it appears that Case No. 16/2008 was registered against the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition for the offence under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner has been charged with the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, the interim order granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. Since in the present case, the case pertains to moral turpitude and corruption, therefore, the petitioner has rightly been put under suspension vide order impugned dated 25.02.2008. Even otherwise also, as per the settled preposition of law, suspension is not a penalty and in any case, it is not such a case where suspension order requires any interference by this Court. 16. Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 17. A copy of the letter dated 12.09.08 issued by the Addl. Commissioner (Admn.), Office of the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, be taken on record. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/