Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 210 (PAT)

Binda Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2006-03-01

V.N.SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner, who is a Deputy Collector and at the relevant time was posted as Block Development Officer, Bihta, has filed this writ application questioning the correctness and validity of the order bearing Memo No. 6215 dated 12th July, 2005, Annexure-4, whereunder, he has been placed under suspension by resorting to the powers contained in Rule 49A(1)(b) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") fixing his headquarters in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. 3. The ground of challenge raised against the said order is that for his involvement and implication in Bihta RS. Case No. 12 of 2002 dated 12.1.2002, registered for the offences under Section 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, he was placed under suspension initially under order bearing Memo No. 2071 dated 28th February, 2002, Annexure-1 which was revoked after petitioner was released from jail custody and submitted his joining report dated 11.2.2005, Annexure-2 under order bearing Memo No. 6091 dated 8th July, 2005, Annexure-3. Then, there was no occasion to issue another suspension order for his involvement in the same Bihta RS. Case No. 12 of 2002 as on the date the earlier suspension was revoked, charge-sheet in the said case was already served. In this connection, it is submitted that once the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked, there is no provision either in the Rules or in the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), whereunder he can be placed under suspension twice for the same overt act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Govind Prasad Sinha V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1995(2) PUR 89 as also on the judgment in the case of Sidhi Nath Jha V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1988 PLJR 1129 and Dr. Kapil Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 1982 PLJR 503. 4. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is being refuted by the learned State counsel with reference to Rule 100 of the Code. Kapil Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 1982 PLJR 503. 4. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is being refuted by the learned State counsel with reference to Rule 100 of the Code. In this connection, learned State counsel has further submitted that the earlier suspension of the petitioner under order dated 28.2.2002, Annexure-1 was in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 99 of the Code and no sooner the petitioner was released on bail in the aforesaid Bihta P.S. Case No. 12 of 2002 on 8.2.2005 the suspension order issued in terms of Rule 99 of the Code stood revoked and the order bearing Memo No. 6091 dated 8th July, 2005, Annexure-3 is only a formal recognition of the fact that petitioner having been released from jail custody and the earlier suspension order dated 28.2.2002, Annexure-1 issued under Rule 99 of the Code has lost its effect and in recognition of the said fact the order dated 8th July, 2005, Annexure-3 revoking the earlier suspension order has been issued. 5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the two suspension orders dated 28.2.2002, Annexure- 1 and the impugned suspension order dated 12.7.2005, Annexure-4, I am of the view that the earlier suspension order dated 28.2.2002, Annexure-1 was in terms of Rule 99 of the Code which automatically stood revoked when, the petitioner was released on bail on 8.2.2005 and the order dated 8th July, 2005, Annexure-3 is only formal recognition of the said fact whereas the present suspension order has been issued under Rule 100 of the Code as after release of the petitioner on bail his implication in the murder case is likely to embarrass the State Government if he is permitted to discharge his official duties and it appears appreciating the said situation the State Government has pfaced the petitioner under suspension under the impugned suspension order in terms of Rule 100 of the Code. I do not see any illegality in the exercise of the said power under Rule 100 of the Code. I do not see any illegality in the exercise of the said power under Rule 100 of the Code. The three case law relied on by the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the present case as in the case of Govind Prasad Sinha, (supra) both the suspension orders were issued under Rule 100 of the Code and thus Court held in the said case that having revoked the first suspension order issued under Rule 100 of the Code the authorities had no jurisdiction to issue another suspension order on same facts/grounds in terms of Rule 100 of the Code. The other case of Sidhi Nath Jha (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner has also no application to the facts of this case as suspension order considered in the said case was a composite order under Rules 99 and 100 of the Code and did not indicate that petitioner was accused in a criminal case. The case of Dr. Kapti Singh (supra) has also no application to the facts of the said case as in the said case also no order under Rule 100 of the Code was issued after the release of the petitioner from custody. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.