Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 918 (PAT)

Arvind Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2001-09-26

NARAYAN ROY

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to G.P. 3 for the respondents and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 2. By this writ application, in sum and substance the petitioner has prayed for revocation of the order of suspension as contained in Annexure-5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner lodged by his wife for an offence under section 498A read with other ancillary sections of the I.P.C. and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he was put under suspension vide order as contained in Anneuxre 5. 3. The order contained in Annexure-5 appears to be an order under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) where a delinquent government employee is put under suspension oh criminal charge. It is further submitted that for the criminal charge the petitioner has been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 5.4.99 in Cr. Misc. No. 16880 of 1998 and there is no question of issuance of warrant of arrest after his release on anticipatory bail. It appears that the order of suspension as contained in Annexure-5 was issued on 28.2.2001. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the order of suspension has been passed and the same is continuing till date, no departmental proceeding for the criminal charge has been initiated against the petitioner. In paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated : "That it is stated that the government has also decided to start a departmental proceeding against the petitioner for which the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture, Department has issued letters to the Collector, Gaya on 19.5.2001 and 30.8.2001 respectively and asking the Collector to send form framing of charges against the petitioner alongwith relevant document. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the departmental proceeding has not been initiated against the petitioner for criminal charge though he is under suspension since 28.2.2001. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner has been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court for criminal charge, in my opinion, the order of suspension should not continue even in absence of a departmental proceeding. 6. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner has been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court for criminal charge, in my opinion, the order of suspension should not continue even in absence of a departmental proceeding. 6. In the result, this application is allowed. The order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 putting the petitioner under suspension is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the departmental proceeding if any, shall proceed in accordance with law.