LAL SINGH CHOUHAN vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JD:22442]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21163/2025
Lal Singh Chouhan S/o Laxman Singh Chouhan, Aged About 58
Years, Prithvi Raj Nagar, Udaipur Road, District Banswara,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Pairshad, Banswara.
4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Ghatol, District
Banswara.
5. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary
Education, District Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Sharma
Mr Nilesh Choudhary for
Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
R eportable-
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 23/03/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 23/03/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/05/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked
the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India assailing the legality, propriety and
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:39:21 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:24:54 AM)

(2 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:22442] [CW-21163/2025]
validity of the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the District
Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary Education,
Banswara, whereby the petitioner has been placed under
suspension while serving on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-
I).
1.1. The petitioner has further challenged the memorandum of
charge-sheet of even date, alleging misconduct on the premise
that certain comments purportedly made by the petitioner on
social media were allegedly against the concerned Minister and
were stated to be in bad taste, thereby allegedly tarnishing the
image of the department and the Minister concerned.
2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the
present controversy are that pursuant to the meeting of the
District Establishment Committee held on 29.05.2003, the
petitioner came to be duly selected and appointed on the post of
Teacher Grade-III and was initially allotted Panchayat Samiti
Peepal Khunt. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.07.2003 issued by
the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, the petitioner
was allotted Panchayat Samiti Ghatol, District Banswara.
2.1. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.07.2003 issued by the
Additional Vikas Adhikari, Elementary Education, Panchayat Samiti
Ghatol, posting orders were issued in favour of the petitioner and
since then the petitioner has been continuously discharging his
duties. While the petitioner was serving on the aforesaid post, the
impugned order dated 23.09.2025 came to be passed by the
District Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary Education,
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:39:21 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:24:54 AM)

(3 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:22442] [CW-21163/2025]
Banswara placing the petitioner under suspension. The said order,
conspicuously, neither refers to any statutory provision under
which such power has been exercised nor records any satisfaction
contemplated under law warranting suspension.
2.2. It is further borne from the record that on the very same
date i.e. 23.09.2025, a memorandum of charge-sheet was issued
to the petitioner alleging that certain comments made on
WhatsApp/social media by the petitioner were inappropriate and
had allegedly caused embarrassment to the department and
attempted to tarnish the image of the concerned Minister. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order of suspension, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that the impugned order of suspension is ex facie arbitrary, dehors
the statutory framework and wholly without jurisdiction. It was
argued that under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, an order of
suspension can only be passed by the competent authority
empowered under the Rules. However, in the present case, the
impugned order has been passed by the District Education Officer,
who is admittedly not the appointing authority of the petitioner
and lacks competence to invoke such drastic power. It was further
submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any
statutory provision under which the petitioner has been suspended
and therefore the same suffers from inherent illegality.
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:39:21 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:24:54 AM)

(4 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:22442] [CW-21163/2025]
3.1. Learned counsel further argued that suspension cannot be
resorted to merely because certain allegations are levelled against
an employee unless the action is strictly traceable to a statutory
provision. The allegations pertaining to social media comments,
even if presumed to be existing, could at best be subject matter of
an inquiry, however, in absence of statutory sanction, the order of
suspension cannot survive. It was also contended that the
impugned action reflects colourable exercise of power and
amounts to arbitrary executive overreach.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
supported the impugned action and submitted that the petitioner
had made objectionable and unbecoming comments on social
media against the concerned Minister, which adversely affected
the image of the department and amounted to misconduct. It was
submitted that the conduct of the petitioner was prejudicial to
departmental discipline and therefore disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against him.
4.1. The respondents further submitted that the authorities were
justified in placing the petitioner under suspension considering the
seriousness of allegations and the possible adverse impact upon
institutional discipline and public perception.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. The foundational issue arising for consideration before this
Court is not with regard to the propriety or impropriety of the
alleged comments attributed to the petitioner, but rather the
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:39:21 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:24:54 AM)

(5 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:22442] [CW-21163/2025]
legality and jurisdictional sanctity of the impugned order of
suspension dated 23.09.2025.
6.1. A meticulous perusal of the impugned order reveals that the
same is conspicuously silent regarding the statutory source of
power under which the petitioner has been placed under
suspension. The order neither refers to Rule 13 of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules nor to any
other enabling provision conferring authority upon the District
Education Officer to exercise such drastic power.
6.2. The concern articulated by the respondents appears to be
that the petitioner, by making alleged comments on
WhatsApp/social media, attempted to tarnish the image of the
concerned Minister. The material placed on record includes a
communication wherein it has been mentioned that “WhatsApp
par kiye gaye ashobhniya comments se Mantri ji ki chhavi ko
dhumil karne ka prayas kiya gaya hai.” At the highest, such
allegations may furnish a basis for holding a departmental inquiry
in accordance with law. However, executive displeasure or
perceived embarrassment cannot substitute statutory
authorization.
6.3. This Court is constrained to observe that in a democratic
polity governed by rule of law, every administrative action
affecting civil consequences must trace its legitimacy to a
statutory provision. Suspension is not an ornamental or unfettered
executive prerogative; rather, it is a serious measure having
adverse civil ramifications upon the employee concerned.
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:39:21 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:24:54 AM)

(6 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:22442] [CW-21163/2025]
Therefore, the same can only be exercised strictly within the
confines of law.
6.4. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 occupies the field governing
suspension of government servants. The said Rule circumscribes
both the authority competent to suspend and the circumstances
under which such power may be exercised. The respondents have
failed to demonstrate before this Court any independent statutory
provision empowering the District Education Officer to place the
petitioner under suspension dehors Rule 13.
6.5. Merely because allegations are levelled that the image of a
Minister has been sought to be tarnished does not bestow
unbridled authority upon administrative officers to invoke
suspension according to their subjective satisfaction. In a
constitutional framework governed by legal discipline, authorities
cannot assume unto themselves powers not vested by law.
6.6. The District Education Officer is indeed a statutory
functionary, but certainly not the ruler of a dynasty empowered to
govern according to personal predilections or administrative
absolutism. His authority emanates solely from statute and must
remain confined within statutory boundaries. Any departure
therefrom would amount to colourable exercise of power and
administrative arbitrariness. The respondents were unable to point
out any provision other than Rule 13 under which the impugned
suspension order could have been passed. Once the action lacks
statutory foundation, the same becomes unsustainable in the eye
of law.
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:39:21 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:24:54 AM)

(7 of 7)
[2026:RJ-JD:22442] [CW-21163/2025]
6.7. It is trite that when a statute prescribes a particular manner
for doing an act, the same must be done in that manner alone and
in no other manner. Administrative convenience or subjective
perception cannot supplant mandatory legal requirements.
6.8. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the
impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the District
Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary Education,
Banswara suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction and cannot be
sustained.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The
impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the District
Education Officer (Headquarters), Elementary Education,
Banswara placing the petitioner under suspension is hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate
the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits in
accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
8. Needless to say, if any inquiry is underway, the same may be
concluded in accordance with the procedure established by law.
8. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
78-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:39:21 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/06/2026 at 12:24:54 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)