Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 160 (JHR)

Shashi Shekharam v. State of Jharkhand

2007-03-12

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 9th May, 2006 whereby the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. 2. It is stated that subsequently the departmental proceeding was initiated and the enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner has already filed his written explanation on 30th November, 2006, but thereafter, there is no further progress in the enquiry. The Presenting Officer is not appearing before the Enquiry Officer on behalf of the department and for the said reason and for his no fault, the departmental enquiry is lingering for the great prejudice to the petitioner. 3. The Enquiry Officer annoyed on the said negligence of the department, sent a letter dated 21st November, 2006 (An-nexure16) to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, to revoke the petitioner's suspension, as nobody is appearing on behalf of the department to support the departmental proceeding, but in spite of the same, neither the departmental proceeding has been concluded nor the petitioner's suspension has been revoked. It has been stated that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by negligent attitude of the department. It has been submitted that till date even the subsistence allowance has not been paid to the petitioner, which is payable in accordance with Rule 96 of the Jharkhand Service Code and also mentioned in the impugned suspension order. 4. Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned G.A., appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the departmental proceeding is in progress and the petitioner has appeared and filed his written explanation and though there was some adjournments due to non-representation of the department, yet, in view of the charges levelled against the petitioner, it is desirable to conclude the departmental proceeding on merit. It has been submitted that the departmental enquiry shall proceed expeditiously and the same shall be concluded shortly. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding and now the departmental proceeding has been initiated, the order of suspension has not been revoked in view of the pendency of the said departmental proceeding. 5. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding and now the departmental proceeding has been initiated, the order of suspension has not been revoked in view of the pendency of the said departmental proceeding. 5. Considering the said submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also the materials brought on record, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to expeditiously proceed with the departmental proceeding and finally conclude the same within a period of three months. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the proceeding. If the departmental proceeding is not finally concluded within the said period, the petitioner's suspension shall stand revoked automatically after expiry of tree months. 6. The respondents, in the meantime, are directed to pay the arrears of subsistence allowance to the petitioner, if not already paid, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the subsistence allowance is not-paid within the said period, the suspension of the petitioner shall stand revoked notwithstanding the pendency of the departmental proceeding, even before expiry of three months, aforementioned.