Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 141 (CHH)

Timan Singh Raj v. Collector Jnjgir-Champa

2004-07-20

FAKHRUDDIN

body2004
ORDER Fakhruddin, J. 1. Heard. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-8-2001 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner's services were terminated from the post of Shiksha Karmi. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner was serving as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-Ill in Boys Primary School, Bamnidih. While in service he was prosecuted for the offences under Section 294,506B, 324, 323, 472 of Indian Penal Code. He was arrested by the police on 27-12-1998 and on 28-12-1998 at 2 p.m. he was produced before the Court and he was sent to jail. Then he was granted bail on 30-12-1998 and on the same day his bail was furnished and he was released. As such, it is submitted that he was said to be detained more than 48 hours. On such reports being received, respondent No. 2/the Janpad Panchayat passed the resolution No. 1, dated 26-2-1999 and thereafter terminated the service vide impugned order dated 10-8-2001 (Annexure P-l) on the following grounds:- (1) that he is involved in criminal activities. (2) that under Rule 9 (2) (a) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, where the Government servant remained in police and judicial custody for more than 48 hours for the above offences. 4. Rule 9 (2) (a) is relevant here and quoted below :- "A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority- (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty eight hours." 5. Shri Behar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that under Rule 9 (2) (a) the petitioner's services should not have been terminated and at the most the petitioner ought to have been placed under suspension if the circumstances so warrant and the action of respondent No. 2 was not at all justified in terminating the services on the above grounds. 6. There is substantive force in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the rule quoted does not provide termination of service, it only empowers the authority to suspend. 7. 6. There is substantive force in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the rule quoted does not provide termination of service, it only empowers the authority to suspend. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court has also passed the interim orders staying the order of termination on 12-9-2001 and pursuant to that he is continuing in service. 8. As borne out, the admitted position is that the petitioner was in detention for more than 48 hours. Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Rules contemplates suspension and not termination. 9. In that view of the matter and having considered the facts and circumstances, material on record and after hearing the Counsel for the parties, it is directed that the order of termination issued on 10-8-2001 (Annexure P-l) be set aside. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that it is not in dispute that petitioner remained in custody for more than 48 hours and pray that the authorities be given liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The respondents may proceed in accordance with law and liberty is accorded to the authorities to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the above direction/observation, this petition stands disposed of. 12. Consequently, M.W.P. No. 604/2002, LA. No. 4720/2001, I.A. No. 5/2002, LA. No. 5270/2003, LA. No. 960/2004 and LA. No. 4214/2004 also stand disposed of.