Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1609 (PAT)

Jai Krishna Jha v. State Of Bihar

2007-10-01

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On 28.03.2007 vide order contained in Annexure-3 petitioner was put under suspension. The suspension pertains to an earlier decision taken in the year 2000 to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The set of charges are annexed and forms part of Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner after service of charge upon him came to file his show cause only in the year 2004. This was so because despite the decision to take action against the petitioner earlier nothing followed thereafter. After filing of the show cause also by the petitioner, the respondents took their time with regard to the departmental enquiry. It seems that matter came to the notice of the highest authority only recently and a decision was taken to expedite the departmental proceeding. It was in that view of the matter that suspension order came to be passed on 28.03.2007. After March, 2007, by virtue of communication dated 24.05.2007 an enquiry officer was also appointed and as informed at the Bar the proceeding is going on. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension which has been passed against him at such a belated stage of the proceeding. His basic submission is that after the final decision to hold a departmental enquiry was taken in the year 2000, he continued to work in various capacity and has shouldered his responsibility conferred upon him. There was no occasion now for the respondents after seven years of that decision to suspend him merely because the departmental enquiry has gained force. His contention is that there is no material either in the counter affidavit or in the stand of the State that the petitioner was coming in the way of the departmental enquiry by virtue of the post he was holding at the time of suspension. To that extent according to his submission there seems to be non-application of mind before passing the order of suspension. He does not see any immediate cause or reason why he has to be kept under suspension while the departmental enquiry was going on against him. To that extent according to his submission there seems to be non-application of mind before passing the order of suspension. He does not see any immediate cause or reason why he has to be kept under suspension while the departmental enquiry was going on against him. He further submits that he is rendering fullest assistance in the enquiry and since he is not holding any post which in any manner will come in the way of the departmental enquiry he should be allowed to continue on the job as such. Counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement and, therefore, the matter should be brought to rest at the earliest. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit the State has indicated that there has been procedural delay in proceeding with the departmental enquiry which was initiated in the year 2000. They further submit that delay was also because of bifurcation of the State and the charges which were levelled against the petitioner relates to the period when he was posted in the geographical region which is now situate in State of Jharkhand. 5. An adjournment was further granted to the State to file supplementary affidavit indicate as to why the State in its wisdom decided to suspend the petitioner after seven years of the initiation of the proceeding and if there was any input to show that the petitioner was coming in the way of the departmental enquiry being conducted against him. The State does not state any cogent or cohesive reason as such as to why they have put the petitioner under suspension after the enquiry picked up speed. The Court had occasion to examine the file where a decision to suspend the petitioner was taken at the highest level but the reason indicated therein is that since the charges are serious in nature, therefore, petitioner should be put under suspension. This is no ground since the respondents have themselves allowed the matter to linger on for seven years. 6. The question, therefore, does arise whether the respondents are correct in adopting the approach that an employee must suffer suspension order while the departmental proceeding is going on. This is no ground since the respondents have themselves allowed the matter to linger on for seven years. 6. The question, therefore, does arise whether the respondents are correct in adopting the approach that an employee must suffer suspension order while the departmental proceeding is going on. In the normal circumstances that may be because if somebody is accused of certain serious charges then a suspension may be called for or required at that point of time. This may also be necessary to keep the person away from his place of work to facilitate a departmental enquiry with due dispassion. But there does not seem to be any proximity between the departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner and the time when he has been put under suspension. If for the last seven years the work of the petitioner has not drawn any adverse comment or action against him then to my mind putting him under suspension just because the departmental enquiry has been speeded up shows non-application of mind to the given facts and circumstances of the case. An employee may or may not be put under suspension while proceeding with a departmental enquiry. It depends on the given facts and situation prevalent at the time the proceeding has been initiated. Since more than seven years have passed since the charge-sheet was drawn the respondents ought to furnish some cogent and valid reason for passing Annexure-3. It is stated by the petitioner that he has even been granted promotion during this period. This Court comes to an opinion that there is no immediate or instant provocation why he should be put under suspension while the departmental enquiry is speeded up after so many years. 7. The Court does not want to make any comments on the nature of the charges which have been drawn-up against him but the Court surely does observe that the matter does require looking into and if material emerges against the petitioner then the consequential orders have to follow. The respondents are, therefore, directed to expedite the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and see to it that the same is concluded at the earliest since in any case the petitioners retirement is looming at the horizon. 8. In so far as the suspension order Annexure-3 is concerned for the reasons indicated above the same is set aside. The respondents are, therefore, directed to expedite the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and see to it that the same is concluded at the earliest since in any case the petitioners retirement is looming at the horizon. 8. In so far as the suspension order Annexure-3 is concerned for the reasons indicated above the same is set aside. Petitioner is hereby directed to cooperate in the enquiry proceeding and not create any situation which turns out to be an impediment in the proceeding which is going on against him. 9. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.