Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 221 (ORI)

Kanhu Charan v. State of Orissa

2012-05-01

D.K.SAHU, S.N.DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT D.K. Sahu, J 1. Succinctly stated, the applicant while serving as an Establishment Officer in Group-B service in the office of the Director, FARD, Orissa has been put under suspension under impugned order dated 22.10.2011 at Annexure-2. It reads as follows: "Whereas Special Secretary to Government, General Administration (Vigilance) Department has reported some serious irregularities committed by Sri Kanhu Charan Sahoo, Ex-Section Officer, at present working as Establishment Officer in the Directorate of AH & VS, Orissa Cuttack vide his letter No. 9235/VSS (S), Dtd. 30.08.2011 addressed to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Fisheries & ARD Department, Sri Kanhu Charan Sahoo is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect pending drawal of draft charges against him." He having been aggrieved by the order of suspension has thus filed this O.A. to quash the same and to hold that it is bad in law. The applicant seeks other consequential benefits, as deemed fit. His submission is that he was promoted to the rank of Establishment Officer on 29.01.2011 under Annexure-1, which can be evident that his previous service rendered in the capacity of Section Officer was satisfactory and un-blemished. But the authority without application of its independent mind having been swayed by the letter of Vigilance Department has put him under suspension. He submits that he has hardly few months to retire from Govt. service. 2. The respondents have filed a counter. It is submitted that the applicant has committed various irregularities during his incumbency of Section Officer of purchase section from 01.12.2005 to 30.08.2010. So, the Vigilance Department has registered a vigilance case against him and advised to put the applicant under suspension. The authority after due consideration has put the applicant under suspension pending drawal of a departmental proceeding. 3. We have gone through the pleadings of both sides at length and heard the learned counsels. 4. It appears from the counter that the alleged misconduct relates to the period from 01.02.2005 to 23.08.2010 while the applicant was serving as a Section Officer. He was promoted to the next higher rank vide order dated 29.01.2011. So, he has not been continuing in the post of Section Officer, in which capacity he is alleged to have committed misconduct since end of January, 2011, whereas the impugned order of suspension has been passed on 22.10.2011. 5. He was promoted to the next higher rank vide order dated 29.01.2011. So, he has not been continuing in the post of Section Officer, in which capacity he is alleged to have committed misconduct since end of January, 2011, whereas the impugned order of suspension has been passed on 22.10.2011. 5. Suspension is not a matter of course in anticipation of drawal of a proceeding or during pendency of the proceeding. The purchase of suspension is basically to keep the erring officer out of the office, so that there would not be any chance to tamper or manipulate the documents. 6. In the instant case, the applicant has been put under suspension about 9 months after he has been out of the office of section officer of that branch. The rejoinder filed by the applicant reveals that no memorandum of charges has been served on the applicant till 14.03.2012 and the vigilance case is under investigation. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that other employees and senior officers are alleged to have committed the aforesaid misconduct, so there is no reason for the authority to keep the applicant under suspension for a prolonged period. Reliance is placed by him on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of U.P. and another reported in (1999) 6 SCC 257 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have observed that there should not be selective suspension and such suspension cannot be permitted. He also submits that the applicant is not the decision making authority in the alleged purchases made on the recommendation of the purchase committee headed by the Accounts Officer. 8. The applicant has only few months to retire from Govt. service on attaining the age of superannuation. Proceedings are yet to be instituted against him. He has been out of the said office since 1 year 3 months and by now he has been under suspension for more than 5 months. In the circumstances his further continuance under suspension may not be equitable and does not appeal to reason. 9. In the facts & circumstances, the Respondents are directed to consider under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 to revoke the order of suspension for his reinstatement. This exercise be completed, within 15 days from communication of this order. 10. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. 9. In the facts & circumstances, the Respondents are directed to consider under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 to revoke the order of suspension for his reinstatement. This exercise be completed, within 15 days from communication of this order. 10. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost. I agree.