Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the suspension order itself has been stayed by this Court, the natural and logical consequence was reinstatement of the petitioner on a regular posting. Continuation under APO, despite judicial intervention, amounts to circumventing the order of this Court.

7. It is further contended that the very foundation of the allegations, namely the criminal case, has culminated in a negative final report, and therefore, continuation of adverse service conditions like APO is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any manner, inasmuch as he is only under APO pending departmental enquiry. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, particularly the fact that even prior (Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 09:08:13 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:19178] (4 of 11) [CW-1930/2026] to suspension, he was already placed under APO on 29.03.2025 in contemplation of enquiry, and therefore, restoration of the said status cannot be said to be illegal.

23. This Court is of the considered view that once allegations of misconduct form the basis of action, the only legally permissible course is to proceed in accordance with the CCA Rules, 1958. Resorting to an APO order in such circumstances amounts to bypassing the mandatory statutory procedure, thereby rendering the action arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

24. In addition to the above, as per the administrative instructions issued by the respondent-State, an APO order is ordinarily not to be continued beyond a period of 30 days and is required to be substituted by a posting order within the said period. However, in the present case, the impugned APO order against the petitioner was passed on 29.10.2025 and despite the lapse of nearly five months, no order assigning a posting to the petitioner has been issued till date. Further, no reason whatsoever, much less any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, has been placed on record by the respondents to justify the continuation of the APO beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. This factor also casts a serious doubt on the bona fides of the respondents.

22. Even otherwise, Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules circumscribes the scope and purpose of placing an employee under APO. The said provision contemplates such arrangement only for limited administrative exigencies and for a short, transitional duration. It does not envisage indefinite or prolonged continuation under APO, particularly in a manner that adversely affects an employee. In the present case, continuation of the petitioner under APO for an uncertain and extended period, without any demonstrable administrative necessity, is clearly de- hors the scheme of the Rules and cannot be countenanced in law.