Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 672 (MP)

Rajesh Singh v. State of M. P.

2010-07-09

R.S.JHA

body2010
ORDER 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner who was at the relevant time posted in the Police Department as a Sports and Youth Welfare Officer, has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24.10.2007 by which he has been placed under suspension and the order dated 13.1.2009 rejecting his application for revocation of suspension. The petitioner, in the present petition has also prayed that he be paid suspension allowance at the highest rate permissible under the Rules. 3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner while he was posted at Harda was implicated in a criminal case which was registered against him and was detained in jail from 24.9.2007 to 8.10. 2007. On 24.10.2007 the impugned order of suspension was issued in respect of the petitioner in view of the provisions of Rule 9 (2-a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1966'). 4. As the charge-sheet was not served upon the petitioner within 90 days the reported back on duty on 8.1.2008 stating that his suspension was deemed to have been revoked but he was not permitted to perform his duties. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was served upon him on 23.1.2008, thereafter the petitioner filed an application for reinstatement/revocation of suspension on 18.3.2008 which was not decided by the authorities and, therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.No. 10986/2008 (S) challenging his order of suspension which was disposed of by order dated 19.9.2008 with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide his representation against his order of suspension. By impugned order dated 13.1.2009 the petitioner's application has been rejected, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging his order suspension as well as the order rejecting his representation. The petitioner has also claimed payment of suspension allowance at the highest rate. 5. By impugned order dated 13.1.2009 the petitioner's application has been rejected, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging his order suspension as well as the order rejecting his representation. The petitioner has also claimed payment of suspension allowance at the highest rate. 5. The respondents have filed a return and stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of the provisions of Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Rules of 1966 as he was detained in jail from 24.9.2007 to 8.10.2007 and as he was placed under suspension in view of the mandate of the aforesaid Rules the provision regarding issuance of a charge-sheet within 45 days or 90 days, as the case may be, do not apply to the petitioner's case and in such circumstances the contention of the petitioner that his suspension should be deemed to have been revoked on the efflux of 45 days or 90 days, deserves to be rejected. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have reviewed the case of the petitioner and granted him 75% suspension allowance as well as arrears thereof and in such circumstances the grievance of the petitioner as far as grant of higher rate of suspension allowance is concerned does not survive. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Rule 9 of the Rules 1966 deals with suspension. Rules 9 (1),9 (2), 9 (2-a) and 9 (5) of the Rules of 1966, which are relevant for decision of the present controversy is in the following terms : "9 (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under in ventilation, inquiry or trial ; (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority. (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours; (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. [(2-a) Where a Government servant is placed under suspension under clause (a) of sub-rule (1), the order of suspension shall contain the reasons for making such order and where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against such Government servant under Rule 14, a copy of the articles of charges the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained shall be issued or caused to be issued by the disciplinary authority to such government servant as required by sub-rule (4) of Rule 14, within a period of 45 days from the date of order of suspension. Provided that where the disciplinary authority is the (State Government or the High Court), the copy of charge and other documents mentioned above shall be issued or caused to be issued to such Government servant within a period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension.] (2-b) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule, shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so: [Provided that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of forty-five days from the date of suspension in case a copy of charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such Government servant by the disciplinary authority (if it is not the State Government) without obtaining the orders of the State Government for extension of the period for issue of the said documents, as required under sub-rule (2-b): Provided further that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension, in case the copy of charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such Government servant.] 7. A perusal of Rule 9 (1) of the Rules of 1966 indicates that the appointing authority or the authority to which the employee is subordinate or the disciplinary authority may place a Government Servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or is pending against him or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under in ventilation inquiry or trial. Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Rules makes it clear that a Government Servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority from the date of detention, if he is detained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. 8. Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Rules makes it clear that a Government Servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority from the date of detention, if he is detained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. 8. Rule 9 (2-a) of the Rules 1966 lays down that if a Government servant is placed under suspension under clause (a) of sub-rule (1), the State Government shall issue or cause to be issued to the Government servant a copy of the charge-sheet and the attending documents within a period of 45 days from the date of such suspension or where the disciplinary authority is the State Government within 90 days of such suspension. 9. Rule 9 (5) (a) of the Rules of 1966 mandates that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966 shall continue in force until modified or revoked by the competent authority provided that an order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period of forty five days in case a copy of the charges and other documents referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to the Government servant by the disciplinary authority or in the extended period as provided under sub-rule (2-b). 10. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules of 1966 makes it abundantly clear that the requirement of issuance of a charge-sheet within 45 days or 90 days, as the case may be, only relates to an order of suspension issued under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) as is clear from a perusal of Rule 9 (2-a) of the Rules of 1966 and does not relate to cases where an employee is suspended or of deemed suspension of the Government servant from the date of his detention under the provisions of Rule 9 (2-a). 11. 11. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his order of suspension stood revoked on expiry of 45 days is misplaced and misconceived as the petitioner has net been placed under suspension under Rule 9 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1966 but has been placed under suspension on account of Rule 9 (2-a) and, therefore, the issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner beyond 45 days would have no effect or impact or his order of suspension which would continue until modified or revoked by the competent authority. 12. In view of the aforesaid conclusion recorded by me, I am also of the opinion that the order dated 13.1.2009 rejecting the; petitioner's representation does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities should have reviewed his suspension allowance much earlier and granted him 75% of pay as suspension allowance and as they have not done so, the petitioner is entitled to penal interest on the amount. 14. The provision of the Rules provides for review and enhancement of suspension allowance but does not provide any statutory period or mandatory period within which the allowance has to be enhanced and the discretion is with the authority whether to enhance the amount or not to do so. In such circumstances the contention of the petitioner regarding grant of interest is also rejected. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner being misconceived is, accordingly, dismissed.