Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 387 (PAT)

Phuleshwar Ravidas v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-08

M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.8.99 as contained in annexure 1 to the writ application by which he has been put under suspension with effect from the date of the order under rule 49A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930. 2. Petitioners case is that in the year, 1988 he was posted as Deputy Collector, Land Reforms at Araria. As a normal course of duty, the Circle Officer forwarded the application for disbursement of jamabandi bond. The petitioner, in turn, forwarded the same to the State Govt. for necessary action but ultimately the State Govt. sometime in the year, 1989 rejected the disbursement of jamabandi bond. It is stated by the petitioner that he was transferred and posted at various places including Ranchi as Special Officer, Rationing. All of a sudden by the impugned order dated 31.8.99 the petitioner was put under suspension on the ground that while he was working as Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria some illegality was committed in jamabandi bonds. 3. Mr.A.K.Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the impugned order, annexure 1, and submitted that even the reasons assigned in the order suspending the petitioner are not correct inasmuch as the jamabandi bond was not even disbursed to the beneficiaries. Learned counsel further submitted that even if any irregularity or illegality was committed by the petitioner which was known to the Government in 1989 itself, for such a long tenure no proceeding was drawn up and all of a sudden the petitioner was put under suspension. Learned counsel further drawn my attention to the reply to counter affidavit and submitted that against the order of the State Govt. rejecting the jamabandi bonds, the beneficiaries filed CWJC No. 9814/92 which was allowed in terms of the order dated 10.2.96 and the respondents were directed to pay compensation to the beneficiaries together with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. Learned counsel further submitted that even the F.I.R. lodged against the beneficiaries have been quashed by this court in Cr.W.J.C. no. 243/96. Mr. Sinha relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Banni Singh & anr. 243/96. Mr. Sinha relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Banni Singh & anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 and in the case of State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mahanti reported in AIR 1994 SC 2296 and lastly on a Bench decision of this court in the case of Chandra Bhushan Sinha vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000(1) PLJR 670 . 4. I find much force in the submission of the learned counsel. Admittedly the illegality or irregularity alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in 1988 and the said fact was known to the Government in 1989 itself when the recommendation for payment of jamabandi bond was rejected. No action, whatsoever, was taken against the petitioner for about 10 years. Suddenly for the first time by the impugned order dated 31.8.99 the petitioner has been put under suspension. In my opinion, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fully apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned J.C. to Govt. Advocate, however, drew my attenion to the relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit and submitted that serious allegation against the petitioner was made/reported about committing irregularities in payment of compensation during the period of his posting as Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria and due to the serious nature of allegation the Govt. decided to suspend the petitioner and initiate a departmental proceeding against him. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was put under suspension and, thereafter, by resolution dated 11.8.99 the Vigilance Commissioner has been appointed as the Conducting Officer of the departmental enquiry and the petitioner was asked to submit his show cause. Learned counsel submitted that a departmental proceeding has already been initiated against the petitioner but neither he submitted his show cause nor is co-operating in the departmental proceeding. 6. So far the order putting the petitioner under suspension on the basis of charges committed 10 years back and that too without initiating a proceeding for the last 10 years is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained in law. 7. This writ application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order so far it relates to putting the petitioner under suspension, is quashed. 7. This writ application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order so far it relates to putting the petitioner under suspension, is quashed. However, it is clarified that the departmental proceeding so initiated by the respondents shall continue and the petitioner is bound to cooperate with the same in order to avoid any penal consequence.