Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 116 (UTT)

CHAITRAM SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA

2012-03-20

TARUN AGARWALA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Seema Sah, the learned counsel for the Union of India/respondents. 2. The petitioner is a guard working in the Survey of India, Surveyor General’s Office, Dehradun. The marriage of the son of the petitioner was solemnized on 10th February, 2010 with one Abhilasha Sharma. It is alleged that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner did not get along with the petitioner and had started threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner contends that he had made a written complaint to the S.S.P. Dehradun as well as to the District Magistrate, Dehradun and also published a news item indicating that he has no concern with his son and his daughter-in-law and that he is living separately. 3. It transpires that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned, who upon considering the matter, directed the police to lodge a First Information Report. Consequently, a Fresh Information Report was lodged on 1st January, 2011 under Section 323, 307,468, 498-A I.P.C. read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Based on this First Information Report, the petitioner was arrested on 3rd January, 2011. The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the petitioner on 17th February, 2011. 4. Since the petitioner was arrested, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 3rd January, 2011 by the disciplinary authority vide his order dated 23rd February, 2011 under Rule 10 (2) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 since he was in custody for more than 48 hours in a criminal case. On 25th March, 2011, the Review Committee considered the matter and made a recommendation dated 25th March, 2011 to the effect that it was desirable in public interest to keep the petitioner under suspension for a further period of 180 days w.e.f. 3rd April, 2011 or till the conclusion of the criminal case against him, whichever was earlier. The said recommendation was accepted by the disciplinary authority, who, by its order dated 23rd February, 2011, allowed the suspension order to continue for a period of 180 days w.e.f. 3rd April, 2011 onwards. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition. 5. The said recommendation was accepted by the disciplinary authority, who, by its order dated 23rd February, 2011, allowed the suspension order to continue for a period of 180 days w.e.f. 3rd April, 2011 onwards. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition. 5. This Court, by an interim order dated 21 st May, 2011, directed the disciplinary authority to consider the representation of the petitioner for the revocation of the suspension order. Based on the said direction of the Court, the Review Committee again made a recommendation on 2nd June, 2011 recommending that the petitioner should continue to remain under suspension in public interest for a further period of 180 days w.e.f. 3rd June, 2011 or till the conclusion of the criminal case against him. The said period has also expired and the petitioner continues to remain under suspension. It is presumed that the disciplinary authority has extended his suspension in a similar mechanical manner. 6. At the outset, the petitioner has been suspended on account of a criminal case being registered against him by his daughter-in-law. The petitioner has not been suspended on account of any dereliction of duty nor any departmental proceedings have been initiated against him for any irregularity committed by him. The petitioner has been suspended under a deeming clause. For facility, the relevant rules, namely, Rule 10(2) and Rule 10 (5)(a) of the Central Civil Servlces (Class, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, are extracted hereunder: “10(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 a 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. “10(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. 7. “10(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. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules indicates that a Government servant would be deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody for a period, which exceeds forty-eight hours. Rule 10 (5)(a) of the Rules indicates that an order of deemed suspension shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. 8. To recapitulate, the First Information Report was lodged on 1st January, 2011. The petitioner was suspended on 3rd January, 2011 and was under arrest for more than 48 hours. Consequently, under Rule 10(2) by a deeming fiction, the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on 17th February, 2011 and applied for revocation of his suspension order on 17th February, 2011. The Review Committee made a recommendation on 25th March, 2011, pursuant to which, the disciplinary authority continued the petitioner’s suspension in public interest for a periog of 180 days, which was again extended on 2nd June, 2011. 9. The reason indicated in the impugned order is that the petitioner’s suspension was desirable in public interest. The Court fails to fathom as to what public interest is involved in continuing the petitioner under suspension. A First Information Report has been lodged by the daughter-in-law against the petitioner which is a purely private dispute and no public interest whatsoever is involved. The respondents have casually treated this matter, and for no reasons are allowing the suspension order to continue in the garb of public interest. The stand of the respondents is totally unwarranted. 10. Quite apart from the aforesaid, Rule 10(2) and Rule 10 (5)(a) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965, is pari materia with Rule 49-A (2)(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The stand of the respondents is totally unwarranted. 10. Quite apart from the aforesaid, Rule 10(2) and Rule 10 (5)(a) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965, is pari materia with Rule 49-A (2)(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. Rule 49-A(2)(a) came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Saxena vs. Director of Education (Basic), (1997) 1 UPLBEC 165, wherein the Full Bench while upholding the validity of Rule 49-A held that the suspension order would continue to remain in force till it is modified or revoked by the authority under sub-rule (5)(a) and that a deemed suspension would be operative only for the period of custody and not beyond that. 11. In the light of the aforesaid, the deemed suspension of the petitioner under Rule 10(2)(a) of C.C.S. Rules, 1965 can only continue from the date when the petitioner was arrested till the date he was enlarged pursuant to the order of the Allahabad High Court passed on the petitioner’s bail application. The continuance of the suspension order beyond that date has to be made on cogent and valid reasons, which the Court in the instant case has already held that the continuance of the suspension order on the ground of public interest is per se misconceived and erroneous. Since no disciplinary proceedings has been initiated by the department, the Court is of the opinion that the continuance of the suspension order on the alleged ground of public interest is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. 12. In the light of the aforesaid, the suspension order dated 23rd February, 2011 as well as the subsequent orders of the Review Committee dated 25th March, 2011 and 2nd June, 2011 as well as the order of the disciplinary authority dated 28th March, 2011 cannot be allowed to continue and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential reliefs.