Judgment:
R.R. Yadav, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned suspension order dated 15.1.1996 (Annx. P/2) on the ground, inter alia, that since no disciplinary enquiry is pending against him, therefore, he cannot be suspended.
2. The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is misplaced within the meaning of Paragraph 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 read with Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, which clearly provides that a delinquent employee can be placed under suspension even if a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated. Pendency of disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent officer is not a condition precedent to place him under suspension.
3. It is true that the services of the petitioner, who is working as a patwari, are governed by Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules of 1957') but the amending the said Rules by Notification dated 10.9.1985, paragraph 14 has been inserted by virtue of which Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules of 1958'), has been made applicable in the matter of disciplinary action against Patwaris.
4. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in a petty criminal case pending trial for the offences under Sections 342, 323, 147 and 148, IPC, therefore his suspension is illegal. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be profitable to quote Rule 13 of the CCA Rules of 1958, which reads thus-
13. Suspension: (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which, it is sub-ordinate 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.
5. Indisputably, in the present case, a criminal case against the petition under Sections 342, 323, 147 and 148, IPC is pending trial, therefore he can be legally placed under suspension under Paragraph 17 of the Rules of 1957 read with Rule 13 of the CCA Rules of 1958.
6. As regards the second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the present petitioner cannot be suspended since he is involved in petty offences under Sections 342, 323, 147 and 148 IPC. is concerned, I am not impressed with the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The phraseology of Rule 13 of the CCA Rules of 1958 quoted above, leads' towards an irresistible conclusion that where a case against the delinquent officer in respect of any criminal offence is either under investigation or trial, such delinquent officer can be placed under suspension. In my humble opinion, the statutory Rule 13 of the CCA Rules of 1958 has not made any distinction about the nature of criminal offence then it would not be possible for this Court to make such distinction about the nature of criminal offence under this disguise of interpretation of the said Rules. In fact such distinction by way of interpretation by this Court would lead to a naked usurpation of legislative function of the Governor of the State conferred upon him under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
8. A court can not afford to usurp nor it can abdicate its power to interpret an enactment or a statutory Rule. Judicial interpretation by a Court is required to be within its definable parameters and never to be exceeded. Addition and substitution of words should always be treated to be contrary to all canons of construction unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. In the present case, the expression 'any criminal offence' used under statutory Rule 13 of the CCA Rules of 1958 is clear, therefore, it is to be enforced without adding and substracting any word or words into it.
9. Since suspension of a delinquent officer or an employee pending disciplinary proceedings is not treated as punishment, therefore, a writ petition is entertainable only in rarest of rare cases on the valid ground evolved by courts of law. For example, if it is found that suspension has not been passed either by the appointing authority or by any other authority empowered to pass such order, a court in its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may entertain a writ petition. Similarly, there may be a case, where suspension order may have been passed validly at initial stage by a competent authority where a disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent officer is contemplated but it is shown before the court that disciplinary authority is guilty of laxness in serving a charge-sheet, a Court may exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction by entertaining a writ petition. These examples are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. In the present case, no valid ground exists to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.
10. In my considered opinion, the order impugned suspending the petitioner passed by the Appointing Authority is eminently just and proper and does not require interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine.