Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 417 (JHR)

H. M. Sehgal v. Heavy Engineering Corporation

2001-07-05

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner, who is in the services of the Respondent Heavy Engineering Corporation (H.E.C.) was implicated in a CBI case. A charge sheet was filed against him in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471, IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In the aforesaid ground, the Deputy General Manager (ACD), the disciplinary authority, placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 20B, until disposal of the case, by order dated 30th January, 1991. 2. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension, as is being continued for more than ten years. 3. The respondents have taken plea that the order of suspension was passed by the competent authority. It was issued because of the pendency of the criminal case, which is still pending. The request of the petitioner for revocation of suspension cannot be considered. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, senior counsel for the respondents submitted that long period of suspension because of pendency of criminal case, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of suspension, held by the Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and Another v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, reported in (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1. 5. The counsel for the respondents produced the relevant rule of suspension, namely, Rule 20 of HEC Employees Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1981 which empowers the competent authority to suspend in the circumstances, as quoted hereunder: "Rule 20. Suspension.--(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Management by general or special order may place an employee under suspension:-- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (2) An employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the appointing authority, and shall remain under suspension until further orders. (2) An employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the appointing authority, and shall remain under suspension until further orders. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon an employee under suspension is set aside on appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further enquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal and shall remain in force until further orders. (4) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon an employee is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal of removal was originally imposed, the employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. (5) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Rule may at any time be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. Note:--In respect of all suspension over six months the same will be subject to special review by the Chairman with a reference to the Board." 6. From the aforesaid Rule, it will be evident that there is no hard and fast rule to place a person under suspension, if a case in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. The disciplinary authority empowered in that behalf by the Management is to apply its mind to determine as to whether a person is to be placed under suspension or not in the facts and circumstances of each case. The disciplinary authority empowered in that behalf by the Management is to apply its mind to determine as to whether a person is to be placed under suspension or not in the facts and circumstances of each case. Note below Rule 20, further stipulates that all suspension over six months will be subject to special review by the Chairman with a reference to the Board and thereby, it cannot be presumed that a person having suspended because of pendency of a criminal case, the authority cannot review the same. 7. Admittedly, almost for same arid similar allegation, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, vide Memorandum of Charges dated 30th January, 1991. In the said case, on completion of enquiry and/or report, the competent authority. vide order dated 14th July, 1993 reduced the petitioner to a lower stage of Rs. 1960/- in the pre-revised time scale of Rs. 1540-2240/-, as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 8. !n the aforesaid background, for same and similar charge, if disciplinary proceeding was initiated and on the basis of gravity of charge, the authority did not choose to remove the petitioner from service, but allowed him to continue in the services of HEC by reducing him to a lower stage of pay, I find no justification on the part of the Respondents to allow the petitioner to undergo suspension for ten years. The authorities should have reviewed the matter, as back as, In 1993, taking into consideration the order of punishment dated 14th July, 1993. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the Court is inclined to interfere with the order of suspension dated 30th January, 1991. The same is revoked with immediate effect. How-ever, this order will not stand In the way of criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner and the arrears of salary of the period of suspension will be dependent on the decision of the criminal case. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of.