Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 162 (JHR)

Ajay Kumar Thakur v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-02-14

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 826 dated 10.10.2006, contained in Annexure-6, issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner was put under suspension on the charges that he remained absent without giving any information. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay salary, which has not been paid since May, 2006. 2. It has been stated that even after lapse of more than a year and half, no memo of charge has been served on the petitioner. No departmental proceeding has been initiated. Even the subsistence allowance has no been paid to the petitioner during the period of his suspension. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia that the charge has already been framed and the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and in view of the said pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioners prayer for quashing the order of suspension is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and the documents, brought on record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the vague statement has been made in the counter-affidavit regarding service of memo of charge, no categorical statement has been made regarding the date and the memo number by which the memorandum of charge has been served on the petitioner. In fact, no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has been kept under suspension even without paying any subsistence allowance. By order dated 1.12.2006, this Court while granting time to the respondents to file counter-affidavit, had passed the order to pay the subsistence allowance, payable to the petitioner. But in spite of the order of this Court, the petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. 7. Learned J.C. to S.C. II, on the other hand, submitted that the charge- sheet has been served on the petitioner and the proceeding is going to against the petitioner. 8. In view of the said statement, this Court without entering into controversy regarding the submission of charge-sheet on the petitioner directs the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of three months from today and also to take decision regarding the petitioners suspension. 8. In view of the said statement, this Court without entering into controversy regarding the submission of charge-sheet on the petitioner directs the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of three months from today and also to take decision regarding the petitioners suspension. If the subsistence allowance has not been paid till date, the arrears of the same shall be paid with interest @ 10% per annum. In that case, the State Government shall be at liberty to realise the amount of interest from the erring official(s). If the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the said period, the petitioners suspension shall stand revoked w.e.f. 14th, May, 2008. 9. This writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations.