Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 284 (PAT)

Sneh Lata Das v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-10

R.S.GARG

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present is yet another case of the redtapism prevalent in the corridors of the Secretariat of the State Government. The bureaucracy and autocracy have virtually failed, they are not alive to their responsibilities and duties, they are not ready to come out of their hibernation despite filing of the writ applications and the letters sent by their Standing Counsel. 3. Present is a matter where the petitioner was placed under suspension from 24.4.1985 in anticipation of enquiry. Nothing was done, no charge-sheet was issued, no charges were levelled and probably on dawn of the wisdom or the good senses prevailed upon them the Directorate, Health Services, Bihar issued orders on 8.12.1986 revoking the suspension with a further embargo that after receipt of the final outcome of the departmental enquiry the direction for payment of the suspension period would be made. 4. The present writ application came to be filed on 11.7.2003. On 14.7.2003 this Court made it clear that in case no counter affidavit is filed the petition will be disposed of on the next date on its own merits. On 3.9.2003 the matter was required to be adjourned. The matter continued to be in the list but appears not to have been taken up for consideration. The respondents in their counter have not stated even a single word as to after 1985 (the date of issuance of suspension order) or after 8.12.1986 (the date of revocation of the suspension order) any charge-sheet was issued or the petitioner was put to a show cause. 18 long years have lapsed. The Department still feels that it is entitled to some more adjournments so that it may issue a notice to the petitioner, ask for his show cause or proceed with the depart mental enquiry. The prayer for adjournment on behalf of the Department is absurd, it is irrational and absolutely illogical. In a matter where in last 18 years the Directorate could not find any material against the petitioner to put him on charge or issue a notice nor did it propose to conduct any departmental enquiry against him, it is not entitled to any further latitude from this Court. 5. The prayer for further adjournment is rejected. 6. In a matter where in last 18 years the Directorate could not find any material against the petitioner to put him on charge or issue a notice nor did it propose to conduct any departmental enquiry against him, it is not entitled to any further latitude from this Court. 5. The prayer for further adjournment is rejected. 6. It is high time to inform the respondents that in a democracy it is the Government of the people, by the people, for the people. The public servants are servants of the public and not the public bosses. A Government servant when joins the service he expects better prospects, increments and payment of regular salary. In a case when he is placed under suspension he suffers a dent and if salary is not paid to him he is put to starvation. In a case where a particular incumbent is placed under suspension and his full salary is not paid, he certainly suffers the plight and perils. A cut in his salary would certainly make his life miserable and in a case where for 18 years or more the department does not propose to go for an enquiry, it would be absolutely irrational to say that at this stage the Department would proceed with the enquiry. The petitioner certainly would be justified in lodging the claim for his full salary for the period between 24.4.1985 and 8.12.1986. 7. The petition is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to pay the full salary for the period between 24.4.1985 and 8.12.1986. The petitioner would also be entitled to 6% interest on the said amount. He would also be entitled to his cost quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. If during the period of suspension the petitioner was entitled to any increment the same should also be given to him. This should be done within a period of three months. The petition is allowed. It is made clear that this order is passed in favour of Sneh Lata Das, wife of Ram Pravesh Singh.