Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1079 (PAT)

Pramod Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2000-09-06

SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2000
Judgment Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner, who during the relevant period was posted as Excise Clerk-Cum-Accountant and also was discharging his duties as Accountant was put under suspension by Annexure-20/1 in contemplation of departmental proceedings. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that due to his dereliction of duty due to supply of forged challans, a loss of Rs. 11,41,691.40 have been incurred by the State. Subsequently by Annexure-21 charge-sheet was submitted on the petitioner but according to earned Counsel though he had asked for certain documents so that he can effectively answer to this charge, the said has still been denied to him. 4. In this regard, it is contended by earned Counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk in the year 1981 and had an unblemished career till 1994, when departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Subsequently, on 4.11.1996 he was terminated from service on the ground that his appointment was illegal. The said order was challenged in this Court and subsequently, when the petitioner filed a contempt application before this Court the had been reinstated in service. It has further been contended that hardly, the petitioner had worked for three to four months more, again by the present order as contained in Annexure-20/1 he had been put under suspension and charge-sheet served on him for dereliction of duty and active collusion for an occurrence said to have taken place in the year 1994-95. 5. The aforesaid order of suspension has been challenged on the ground that allegations is stale, being six years old and secondly, the same being mala fide as the authorities in view of the fact that they did not succeed in getting terminated his service had adopted the present method to put him out of job. 6. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance has been made upon two judgments of this Court; firstly in the case of Phuleshwar Ravidas V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2000 (3) PLJR 291 where a Single Judge of this Court had in the facts of the case opined that petitioner suspended on allegations of irregularities committed in the disbursement of the Jamanbandi bonds ten years ago, no departmental proceedings drawn up for such a long tenure. Petitioners suspension all of a sudden was bad in law and quashed. 2000 (3) PLJR 291 where a Single Judge of this Court had in the facts of the case opined that petitioner suspended on allegations of irregularities committed in the disbursement of the Jamanbandi bonds ten years ago, no departmental proceedings drawn up for such a long tenure. Petitioners suspension all of a sudden was bad in law and quashed. Here also, according to earned Counsel present suspension order is for an occurrence which is nearly six years old. As such, according to learned Counsel, in view of ratio decided in the aforesaid judgment, the present order of suspension should also be quashed. 7. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has stated that for the aforesaid Act, departmental proceedings had already been initiated in the year 1994, but, as his appointed itself was found to be illegal and he had been terminated from service, said departmental proceedings died its natural death and as such, only after his reinstatement fresh proceedings have been initiated and he has been put under suspension. The delay stands explained. Though the contention of earned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the departmental proceedings of 1994 he was not suspended and in the present departmental proceedings which are for the same action of his, he has been suspended smacks of malice and at present petitioner is posted at Araria and the cause of action is of Gaya. 8. Another judgment relied upon by earned Counsel in support of aforesaid contention is that in the case of Chandra Bhushan Sinha V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2000 (1) PLJR 670 . In the aforesaid judgment, a Single Judge of this Court while interpreting Rule 49A(1)(a) of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 held that power to suspend an employee, pending inquiry of contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charge of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and Commission, cannot be exercised in a routine or automatic manner and as such, suspension of the employee in the aforesaid case was found to be bad and quashed. 9. As the allegation against the petitioner in the present case is also of financial irregularities, as such, to my mind, the aforesaid judgment is of no avail to this case. 10. 9. As the allegation against the petitioner in the present case is also of financial irregularities, as such, to my mind, the aforesaid judgment is of no avail to this case. 10. The only fact which is required to be seen is as to whether in departmental proceedings which has been initiated for an occurrence purported to have taken place six years earlier, order of suspension was required to be passed, specially when the petitioner is posted at a place which is far away from the place where the aforesaid Act actually took place. Though it is contended by learned Counsel for the State that the act of the petition is not an isolated act rather several, other similar acts took place in the District of Gaya alone, resulting in a loss of crores of rupees to the exchequer and as the allegation against the petitioner is of financial irregularities resulting in a. loss of crores of rupees to the State Exchequer and the aforesaid irregularities being a financial irregularities, suspension of a person in contemplation of departmental proceedings should not be interfered by this Court as suspension is not punishment in itself. 11. In the facts of the case, taking into consideration the delay in initiation of the departmental proceedings, the only order that I propose to pass is to frame a time-limit so that departmental proceedings themselves can be concluded within a stipulated period. By Annexure-21 petitioner has been served a copy of the charge-sheet and has to file his show-cause. By Annexure-24, he had asked for certain documents. The respondents are directed to supply the necessary papers which are necessary for filing of show-cause to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if certain documents asked for by the petitioner are found to be bulky, he should be provided an opportunity to inspect the same within the aforesaid period. If certain documents are found to be not necessary documents, specific order regarding the same be also passed within the aforesaid period. 12. The petitioner after receipt/verification of the aforesaid document within the period as prescribed above shall file his show-cause within a further period of two weeks from that date. 13. If certain documents are found to be not necessary documents, specific order regarding the same be also passed within the aforesaid period. 12. The petitioner after receipt/verification of the aforesaid document within the period as prescribed above shall file his show-cause within a further period of two weeks from that date. 13. The Inquiry Officer is further directed to conclude his inquiry within a period of four months from the date of filing of the show-cause. The Disciplinary Authority is directed further to pass his final order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the inquiry report, failing which if the laches is not on the part of petitioner, the order of suspension shall stand vacated but the departmental proceedings shall continue. It is made clear that if the authorities feel that the departmental proceedings are not likely to conclude within the aforesaid period, they are at liberty to move this Court for getting the aforesaid period extended. It is further made clear that if the petitioner does not cooperate in the departmental proceedings, liberty is granted to the Inquiry Officer to proceed ex parte. 14. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Writ application stands disposed of.