Rajasthan HC rejects plea of suspended government employee for allegedly fabricating documents

Dismissal of petition against the suspension of a government employee pending departmental inquiry against him, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope of interference in the matter of suspension was very limited.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order he said: “In the matter of suspension, the exercise of the extraordinary power of judicial review conferred on this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The scope is limited to the extent of examining the competence of the authority that places an employee under suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective suspension; the allegations are frivolous/technical in nature; the suspension was completely unjustified; and there was no application of the mind. In matters of suspension, each case must be examined in the factual context of the given case..“

Referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter, the high court highlighted certain principles, some of which are as follows:

Suspending an employee was not an administrative, routine, or automatic order that could be easily passed. Rather, the seriousness of the offense had to be considered.
The suspension should be an aid in reaching the final outcome of the investigation.
The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner without any reasonable cause and should be used only when there has been a strong prima facie case of delinquency.
The purpose of the suspension was to complete the inquiry/investigation procedure without any hindrance.
The relevant facts should be considered by the competent authority, together with the extent to which the public interest would suffer if the offender were not suspended.

In the case of the petitioner, his appointment to the post of General Manager (Marketing) (Cooperative Recruitment Board) was earlier challenged through a writ petition alleging that he got the appointment on the basis of forged experience letter. In response to the allegations, the State filed a reply in favor of the petitioner. It was argued that once a favorable reply was filed by the State, they could not have made a U-turn by conducting the preliminary inquiry and suspending the petitioner without any relevance as the petitioner had not influenced the departmental inquiry or any of the witnesses.

On the contrary, the State contended that 10 candidates were nominated and the petitioner’s name, though not initially recommended, was later added by using correction fluid in the mark sheets. It was alleged that an incorrect reply was given by the State, but when this mistake was noticed, a preliminary inquiry was conducted in which the allegations against the petitioner were proved. Considering the seriousness of the accusations, the decision was taken to suspend the petitioner until the investigation is completed.

After examining the submissions, the Court held that the powers and discipline of the public servant are governed by the service rules and regulations and the power to suspend an employee has gone beyond the power to take disciplinary action on an allegation of misconduct. It was observed:

“In terms of suspension, there are two competing interests. On the one hand is the employer’s desire to ensure the transparent operation of the public service and to impose discipline. Therefore, he would not mince words to take disciplinary action when any misconduct is brought to his notice. When the allegations are serious/insubordination is palpable, it is also in public interest to suspend such an employee. On the other hand is the concern of the employee. It is an accepted fact that although suspension does not terminate employment and is not a punishment in itself, it has a detrimental effect on the employee and his family and attaches stigma…”

The court held that it is necessary to verify the legality of such a suspension based on the following:

If the suspension was made to impose discipline or to convey to other employees that dereliction of duty could not be tolerated or to ensure that employees do not create an obstacle to the smooth conduct of the investigation.
If such power was exercised not as an administrative routine or an automatic consequence of the alleged misconduct.
If there has been a careful analysis of the problem and the deviation in the right perspective.

In this context, the Court pointed out that at the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the allegation against the petitioner was that he had fabricated certain documents to obtain the appointment together with certain manipulations in the official record by applying the correctional fluid.

Therefore, looking into the nature of the allegations, the Court held that there was no error in the suspension of the petitioner and the petition was accordingly dismissed, holding that since the suspension cannot be for an indefinite period, the departmental inquiry should preferably be completed. within 4 months.

However, the court said it did not express its opinion on the merits of the case.

Title of the case: Pankaj Bhootra vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 420

Click here to read/download the order