Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 988 (PAT)

Lal Babu Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-11

NARAYAN ROY

body2002
Judgment NARAYAN ROY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and JC to SC I for the State and considered the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. The order of suspension, as contained in Annexure-I, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been put under suspension pending departmental inquiry. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 28/06/1999 and till date departmental proceeding has not been concluded. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, prayed for revocation of the order of suspension. 4. Two sets of counter-affidavits have been filed one on behalf of the Civil Surgeon, Bhojpur, respondent No. 5, and another on behalf of the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, respondent No. 2, 5. Counter-affidavit of respondent No. 5 appears to be a format affidavit, whereas in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2, it is stated that the inquiry officer repeatedly is asking the petitioner to submit relevant papers in his defence and since it has not been done, it will not be desirable to revoke the order of suspension passed against the petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is under suspension since 28/06/1999 and till date the departmental proceeding is pending. The stand taken by the State in its counter-affidavits does not appear to be in accordance with law, as the delinquent, the petitioner, cannot be compelled to produce papers in his defence. However, it appears from the statements made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the respondent authorities have decided not to revoke the order of suspension passed against the petitioner, unless the petitioner adduces evidence in his defence. The stand of the State respondent, in that view of the matter, must be held to be contrary to law. In case, the petitioner was not adducing the evidence, the departmental proceeding could have been concluded and the petitioner, in no way could have been allowed to remain under suspension for about four years. 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, in my opinion, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner should not be allowed to continue. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is revoked. 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, in my opinion, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner should not be allowed to continue. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is revoked. The departmental proceeding, however, will proceed in accordance with law.