M.C. Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Alok Sharma, J—The petitioner challenges his suspension on 11.06.2015 under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter "the CCA Rules").

Mr. Rajvir Sharma, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the entire work relating to Canal and Bridges of Pipad Medium Irrigation Project, Jhalawar was completed prior to the petitioner being posted as Executive Engineer thereto on 29.10.2014. It has been submitted that the petitioner only made payment of XIII and final running bill to the Contractor as prepared by the Assistant Engineer on 21.07.2014. Thus no wrong doing or irregularities can be attributed to the petitioner either with regard to the quality of the construction work or for wrongful payment. It has been further submitted that the order of suspension dated 11.06.2015 purports to be in the exercise of powers under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules but is vitiated on account of fact that the petitioner was at the time neither subject to any criminal proceedings, nor does the order of suspension state that a department inquiry was then contemplated against him or pending.

Mr. Sanjeev Singhal, appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy inasmuch as the petitioner has recourse to an application for revocation of his suspension under Section 13(5) of the CCA Rules or an appeal under Rule 22 thereof. It has been further submitted that since the passing of the order of suspension dated 11.06.2015, the Chief Engineer of the Water Resources Department has recommended the issue of charge-sheet to the petitioner specifically with regard to the improper payments made by the petitioner to the Contractor under the XIII and final running bill to an extent of Rs. 12,11,849/-. It has been submitted that it transpired on inspection by the higher authorities that the quality of work at the left main Canal of Pipad Medium Irrigation Project, Jhalawar for which the payment was made by the petitioner, was substandard leading to revenue loss to the State. It has been submitted that the petitioner had certified the quality of work of the left main canal aforesaid even though the XIII and final bill was prepared by Assistant Engineer on 21.07.2014. The petitioner then cannot escape from responsibility and is to be so charge-sheeted. Counsel for the respondents further pointed out that as per the Department norms, the payment of running bills is to be treated as advance payment to the contractor and before making the payment of final bill-as done by the petitioner, work had to be checked by the Executive Engineer In-Charge at the relevant time and if deficiency is then found it was to be rectified by the Contractor before making of the final payment to him. The petitioner had instead, in the XIII and final running bill, certified the quality of the work executed by the Contractor despite it being inferior quality as found on inspection by the Higher authorities. A decision has been taken to proceed against the petitioner by resort to Rule 16 of CCA Rules and the charge-sheet has now been proposed on 04.08.2015 by the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department to the Department of Personnel.

Heard. Considered.

Rule 13 of the CCA Rules provides that the Appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension (a) where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial.

Aside of Rule 13 of the CCA Rules, 1958, it is trite that an employer has a right to suspend his employee and keep the relation of master and servant in abeyance. The issue before this Court is as to whether the power under Rule 13 of CCA Rules has been prima facie fairly exercised in the facts of the case or whether it is vitiated by mala fides. From the record, it is apparent that XIII and the final running bill has been passed by the petitioner certifying the quality of work done by the Contractor at Canal and Bridges of Pipad Medium Irrigation Project, Jhalawar. In the reply to the writ petition, the specific say of the respondents is that on inspection, the said work was found to be of poor quality and the petitioner instead of ascertaining the quality of work properly and requiring the Contractor to rectify the defective work, proceeded to make payment of Rs. 12,11,849/- to the Contractor which, except for Rs. 29,000/- paid in cash, was adjusted against the other outstandings against the Contractor.

It is however not for this Court to address the merit of the charges against the petitioner. That is a matter for the inquiry officer to go into on the basis of evidence laid before him in the course of inquiry. For the present I would even be disinclined to address the issue of the petitioner''s suspension on merit in view of the fact that the petitioner has his remedy there-against both under Rule 13(5) of the CCA Rules and Rule 22 thereof.

At this stage, Mr. Rajvir Shrama, counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Rule 13(5) of CCA Rules has already been filed before the competent authority. He prays that another application under Rule 13(5) of CCA Rules be allowed to be filed before the competent authority within a one week as more material has come in the possession of the petitioner to seek revocation of his suspension.

The prayer for filing an application afresh under Section 13(5) of CCA Rules is allowed. It is further directed that the said application be disposed of by the competent authority in accordance with law within three weeks of its receipt.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.