Suspension pending enquiry upheld where mala fides were unproven, jurisdiction existed, and administrative instructions caused no prejudice.

Suspension pending departmental enquiry will not be invalidated on allegations of mala fides unless the challenger pleads and proves specific facts showing personal bias or improper motive. The power to suspend was treated as incidental to the power to appoint and was not excluded by the applicable service rules or Tehsildari Rules, so interim suspension pending enquiry remained within jurisdiction. Breach of departmental instructions requiring service of the charge-sheet before suspension did not vitiate the order because those directions were administrative, not statutory, and no prejudice was shown. The writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order of suspension was vitiated by mala fides or bias on the part of the Financial Commissioner; (ii) whether the Financial Commissioner had jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension under the applicable service rules and general law; and (iii) whether the suspension order was invalid for breach of departmental instructions requiring service of the charge-sheet before suspension.

Issue (i): whether the order of suspension was vitiated by mala fides or bias on the part of the Financial Commissioner.

Analysis: Allegations of mala fides require specific facts and material showing personal ill-will, bias, or an improper motive. Bare assertions, conjectures, and abusive imputations are insufficient. The Court applied the settled principle that official acts are presumed to be honest and lawful, and the burden lies on the party alleging bad faith to substantiate it with clear particulars. The material on record did not support the accusation that the impugned action was taken out of vindictiveness or personal animus.

Conclusion: The allegation of mala fides failed and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the Financial Commissioner had jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension under the applicable service rules and general law.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between suspension by way of punishment and suspension pending a departmental enquiry. The service rules governing punishments did not exclude interim suspension during enquiry. In addition, the power to appoint included the power to suspend under the general clauses law, and that power was not taken away by the Tehsildari Rules. The suspension order, though issued in the name of the Commissioner, was made as ordered by the Financial Commissioner and was treated as an order pending enquiry.

Conclusion: The suspension was within jurisdiction and the contention of want of authority failed.

Issue (iii): whether the suspension order was invalid for breach of departmental instructions requiring service of the charge-sheet before suspension.

Analysis: The relevant directions were administrative in character and did not have the force of statutory rules. The later instructions expressly permitted suspension before service of the charge-sheet in suitable cases. In the absence of any shown prejudice, breach of such executive guidance did not furnish a ground for judicial interference.

Conclusion: The alleged breach of departmental instructions did not vitiate the suspension order.

Final Conclusion: No ground for interference was established, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suspension order pending departmental enquiry will not be quashed for want of mala fides, lack of jurisdiction, or breach of mere administrative instructions unless the challenger proves specific facts showing bad faith, absence of legal authority, or prejudice from a mandatory rule violation.

---