Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 34 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Mandal v. State

2008-01-08

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 7.12.2007 whereby and whereunder competent authority of the State Government has passed the order in purported exercise under Rule 9(1)(ka) Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). 3. Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that impugned order of suspension was mala fide and based on non est materials. In this context he has stressed on the aspect that his suspension order for disobedience of the order of his superior officer is factually incorrect because he had given information to the police station well within time and as such he could not be held liable for the delay in instituting of the First Information Report. Such delay in recording of FIR according to him had taken place due to lapse/ negligence of local police Officer/Officer in-charge of the police station. 4. The counsel for the State however opposing the prayer of the writ petitioner submitted there are sufficient materials to justify an order of suspension. 5. Having appreciated the aforementioned submission, this court is of the view that when the departmental enquiry is yet to take place against the petitioner it would not be proper to go into the. merits of an order of suspension. It is well settled law that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere in an order of suspension only under exceptional circumstances in when it is wholly without jurisdiction or mala fide. Unfortunately the present case does noI fall in the either category. Accordingly the impugned order of suspension has to be upheld and the writ application to that extent must be dismissed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner however states that till date memo of charge has not been issued to him. In that view of the matter. the competent authority is directed to ensure that the charge-sheet against the petitioner is issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Counsel for the petitioner however states that till date memo of charge has not been issued to him. In that view of the matter. the competent authority is directed to ensure that the charge-sheet against the petitioner is issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of service of such a charge-sheet, the petitioner will file his reply within a period of three weeks thereafter and the competent authority after looking into the defence of the petitioner taken in his written statement if necessary will appoint Enquiry Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such written statement of defence. The Enquiry Officer within three months of his appointment will conclude enquiry and submit his enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority who in turn will pass appropriate final order within a period of four weeks thereafter. The aforesaid time limit has to be complied strictly and if the petitioner fails to cooperate In the departmental proceeding, the authority will be at liberty to proceed ex parte against him. 7. In the event the final order is not passed within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this court again. 8. With these observations/directions, this application is disposed of.