Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition challenging the suspension order based on compromise between the villagers and revenue officials, after petitioner, a Range Forest Officer Grade-II in Raisinghnagar, Anupgarh, filed an FIR related to death of two Chinkaras (deer), a single-judge bench of Vinit Kumar Mathur, J., quashed and set aside the suspension order and held that the competent authority’s failure to apply mind and the involvement of an inappropriate authority undermines the validity of the suspension.
In the instant matter, on 19-06-2024, two Chinkaras (deer) were found dead and the petitioner filed an FIR on 20-06-2024, leading to the arrest of three individuals. Due to agitation in the area, a compromise was reached on 20-06-2024 between the villagers and revenue officials, stipulating the petitioner’s suspension as a condition. The petitioner was suspended by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HQ), Rajasthan on 21-06-2024. Aggrieved by the impugned suspension order, the petitioner filed the petition challenging the same.
The petitioner argued that the suspension order issued without proper consideration and in response to the compromise agreement rather than any fault of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the impugned suspension order was passed by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, not the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the appointing authority. The petitioner further argued that there was no negligence or fault on the part of the petitioner and no charge-sheet had been issued against him. However, the respondents contended that the petitioner was suspended due to anticipated disciplinary inquiry related to negligence in preventing poaching. The respondents further stated that immediate action was necessary due to increased poaching activities.
The Court stated that “the suspension though is not a punishment but is required to be effected with due caution and vigilance and a civil servant could not be placed under suspension without due application of mind and without examining the need to do so.” The Court stated that 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 Court stated that the suspension was based on a compromise between villagers and revenue officials, hence, indicating a lack of application of mind by the issuing authority. The Court stated that there was no charge-sheet issued against the petitioner to justify the suspension. The Court asserted that the suspension was ordered by an authority who did not have the requisite power according to the rules.
The Couet quashed and set aside the suspension order dated 21-06-2024 due to its issuance by an incompetent authority and lack of proper consideration of the petitioner’s actions and circumstances.
The Court allowed the writ petition and disposed of the stay petition and other pending miscellaneous applications accordingly.
[Ashok Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2686, Decided on 27-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Parmendra Bohra, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG, Counsel for the Respondents
