Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 201 (GAU)

Rabindra Nath Saha v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2009-03-24

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2009
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Achung, learned Government Advocate, for the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein was initially working as a Store-Keeper at Central Purchasing Organization (CPO) at Pidi in the District of West Siang under the Directorate of Supply and Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and while working so, some allegation of misappropriation of sale proceeds has been brought against him which led to registration of a criminal case and his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case. The Petitioner was in the police lock-up for 49 days and on that ground, he was placed under suspension by the Respondent No. 2 viz., Director of Supply and Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, vide order dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-V to the writ-petition) with retrospective effect from 18.05.2006 on contemplated drawal of departmental proceeding. The Petitioner submitted representations on 14.02.2007 and 08.04.2008 before the Respondent No. 2 for revocation of the suspension order and reinstatement in service but no order has been passed acceding his request. The Petitioner, having no other alternative, approached this Court praying for revocation of the suspension order aforesaid and reinstatement in service. 3. Mr. Apang, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that under provision of Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority is to initiate and complete the departmental proceeding within a period of 3 (three) months. The learned Counsel further submits that the Government of India, in its order communicated vide DG P and T's Letter Nos. 201/43/76-DISC-II dated 15th July, 1976, made the following provisions: Para-1(d): In case where an official is deemed to have been placed under suspension under Rule 10(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, as soon as the official is released from the police custody, the competent authority should consider the case to decide whether the continuance of the official under suspension is absolutely necessary or not. If the period of suspension has already exceeded the limit of three months and the competent authority does not find justification to revoke the suspension, in such case, he should immediately make a report to the next higher authority, giving detailed justification for continuing the official under suspension. If the period of suspension has already exceeded the limit of three months and the competent authority does not find justification to revoke the suspension, in such case, he should immediately make a report to the next higher authority, giving detailed justification for continuing the official under suspension. Para-1(e): In order to kept the suspension to the barest minimum, the competent authority should take all the possible steps to file a charge-sheet in a court of law, where an official has been placed under suspension on account of a court case, or serve the charge-sheet if the action to be taken under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. within three months from the date of suspension and in case it is not possible to do so report the matter to the higher authorities explaining the reason for the delay. Mr. Apang, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that inspite of such clear provisions under the aforesaid Rules and order, the authorities concerned have refused to revoke the suspension order and reinstate the Petitioner which warrants issuance of a suitable direction, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to the Respondent authorities. 4. The Respondent authorities have filed the counter-affidavit. Based on the statements made in the said affidavit, particularly paragraph-15, Mr. N. Achung, learned Government Advocate, it is submitted that a case has been registered by the Special Investigation Cell (Vigilance) against the Petitioner and the aforesaid case is still pending and unless the final charge-sheet is submitted and the said case is settled, no departmental proceeding could be initiated and the Respondent authorities would not like to award double punishment to the Petitioner. 5. From the submissions, as made above, by the parties, it is found that there is no dispute on the fact that the Respondent authorities are yet to initiate the departmental proceeding and the Petitioner is under suspension till date without any departmental proceeding being initiated against him. If the stand of the Respondent authorities is accepted that unless the charge-sheet is filed in respect of the vigilance case and the matter is settled, no departmental proceeding could be initiated, the Petitioner would be placed under suspension for an indefinite period of time which is not at all permissible under the aforesaid provisions of the statutory Rule. If the stand of the Respondent authorities is accepted that unless the charge-sheet is filed in respect of the vigilance case and the matter is settled, no departmental proceeding could be initiated, the Petitioner would be placed under suspension for an indefinite period of time which is not at all permissible under the aforesaid provisions of the statutory Rule. There is no law that the Disciplinary Authority cannot initiate the departmental proceeding against a delinquent official during pendency of any criminal case. It is always open for the Disciplinary Authority to draw-up departmental proceeding against the delinquent official against whom some misconduct is alleged. It has been placed on record that the authorities concerned are paying 75% subsistence allowance to the Petitioner without taking any service from him in any manner. 6. In my considered view, if the Petitioner is kept under suspension for an indefinite period of time without utilizing his service, the State would be wasting public money and human resource. In view of the above, it is hereby directed that the concerned Respondent authorities shall revoke the impugned order dated 01.08.2006, whereby the Petitioner was placed under suspension, forthwith and reinstate him in service at the earliest preferably within 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the Petitioner. It is needless to say that the Respondent authorities are always at liberty to initiate departmental proceeding against the Petitioner in accordance with the existing provisions of law and established procedures. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.