Rajasthan High Court Quashes Teacher's Suspension For Criticising Minister Online, Says 'Executive Displeasure' Cannot Override Law
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the suspension of a government teacher over his social media comments against a sitting Minister.The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the suspension order was silent on the statutory source of power under which the petitioner was suspended. It opined that executive displeasure or perceived embarrassment could not substitute statutory authorization....
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the suspension of a government teacher over his social media comments against a sitting Minister.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the suspension order was silent on the statutory source of power under which the petitioner was suspended. It opined that executive displeasure or perceived embarrassment could not substitute statutory authorization.
The Court observed that at the maximum, the allegations might have attracted departmental inquiry, as per law.
“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… Administrative convenience or subjective perception cannot supplant mandatory legal requirements.”
For context, the petitioner was serving as a government teacher when he was placed under suspension by an order passed by the District Education Officer.
On the same date, a memorandum of charge sheet was served upon him that reflected alleged misconduct on his part. It revealed that certain comments made by him on social media were bad in taste, that tarnished the image of the department and minister.
The suspension order was challenged before the Court on the ground that the order did not refer to any statutory provision under which such power was exercised.
Further, it was argued that under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“Rules”), suspension order could be passed only by the competent authority. However, the present order was passed by the District Education Officer who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner.
The counsel of the petitioner further argued that suspension could not be resorted to merely because certain allegations were levelled, unless the action was strictly traceable to a statutory provision.
After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner. It was highlighted that the suspension order was silent about the statutory force of the power under which the order was passed, neither it referred to Rule 13 or any other enabling provision.
The Court held that in a democratic set up, every administrative action that had civil consequences must trace its legitimacy to a statutory provision.
“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.”
It was stated that suspension was not an unfettered executive prerogative, but a serious measure, that could be exercised strictly within the confined of law. Once the action lacked statutory foundation, it was unsustainable in the eyes of law.
In this background, the Court held that the suspension order suffered from patent lack of jurisdiction and was unsustainable.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, setting aside the suspension order. The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated.
Title: Lal Singh Chouhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 192