Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1653 (PAT)

Ramjee Mishra v. State of Bihar

2016-12-16

JYOTI SARAN

body2016
JYOTI SARAN, J.:–Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Narain Sharma, learned Assisting Counsel to Advocate General for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.427 dated 13.11.2014, whereby he has been put under suspension in exercise of power vested under rule 9(1) (c) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) inter alia on grounds of his involvement in a criminal case arising from Arwal P.S. Case No.85 of 2014. 3. Facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner happens to be the Project Director of ATMA in the district of Arwal. An FIR was instituted by him on 7.4.2014 on the alleged discovery of theft which had taken place in the office in which the digital camera, printer along with some other office articles had been stolen. The FIR instituted gave rise to Arwal P.S. Case No.85 of 2014. Upon investigation the investing agency submitted the charge-sheet on 7.4.2014 under sections 457, 380 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code showing the petitioner also as an accused. The petitioner was taken into custody on 10.4.2014 and was released on bail on 14.8.2014. An order of suspension bearing Memo No.168 dated 11.6.2014 for the period the petitioner remained in custody in the criminal case was passed. The order impugned has been passed subsequently on 13.11.2014 whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension with effect from the date he joined the office after being released from custody on 19.8.2014. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The argument advanced by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that save and except the criminal case no separate proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. He submits that the criminal case also has not progressed since after the cognizance order. The short submission made by the learned counsel is that the petitioner cannot be kept in continued suspension and that a period of more than two years have lapsed, it requires revocation. 5. Mr. He submits that the criminal case also has not progressed since after the cognizance order. The short submission made by the learned counsel is that the petitioner cannot be kept in continued suspension and that a period of more than two years have lapsed, it requires revocation. 5. Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned counsel for the State has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1994)4 SCC 126 (State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty) and with reference to the opinion recorded at paragraphs 7 and 14 of the judgment he submits that the Supreme Court in reference to an earlier Constitution Bench judgment has upheld the power of the disciplinary authority to suspend in cases of serious misconduct. He submits that since the petitioner has been charged of being a party of the alleged theft, there is no occasion for interference with the order of suspension. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. 7. In the nature of accusation made against the petitioner I am not persuaded to comment anything on merits of the allegation which has led to the suspension but then the respondents are obliged to consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order in view of the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms bearing letter No.3/R-3-3304/86 dkfeZd 9180 dated 3.7.1986. Paragraph 4(x) of the guidelines casts an obligation on the Departmental Secretary to review such suspension order where the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings have remained inconclusive for a period of more then two years. The discretion has been left with the Departmental Secretary to review such position every three months and take a decision in this regard without the same having an adversarial effect on the disciplinary proceeding, if any, initiated against a delinquent. Clause 4(x) of the guidelines reads as follows:— 4. The discretion has been left with the Departmental Secretary to review such position every three months and take a decision in this regard without the same having an adversarial effect on the disciplinary proceeding, if any, initiated against a delinquent. Clause 4(x) of the guidelines reads as follows:— 4. vkids lqyHk funsZ'k ds fy, dkfeZd foHkkx ds mi;qZDr ifji= la0 8537] fnukad 3.7.1981 dh dafMdk &2 dk m)j.k uhps fn;k tk jgk gS& ^^--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ¼x½ ,sls ekeyksa esa Hkh tgk¡ ljdkjh lsodksa ds fo:) QkStnkjh eqdnek ds vfrfjDr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh Hkh pyk;h tk jgh gS vkSj ljdkjh lsod ds fuyEcu dh vof/k nks o"kZ ls vf/kd dh gks x;h gS rks ;g vko';d gS fd foHkkx ds lfpo }kjk ekeys dh leh{kk izR;sd rhu ekg esa dh tk;sA muls ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os ljdkjh odhy ds ek/;e ls QkStnkjh eqdnek ds Rofjr fu"iknu ds fy, vko';d dkjZokbZ djsaA vxj muds fopkj esa QkStnkjh eqdnek esa cgqr vf/kd foyEc gksus dh laHkkouk gS vkSj ljdkjh lsod ds fuyEcu dh vof/k nks o"kZ ls vf/kd gks x;k gSs rks foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ij fdlh izfrdwy izHkko ds jktif=r inkf/kdkjh ds fuyEcu ls eqDr djus ds lEcU/k esa ekeys ds xq.k&nks"k dh tk¡p dj eq[; lfpo ds ek/;e ls vkns'k izkIr djsaA …. …. …. ….. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….. ….” 8. In view of the position so discussed, for the present I deem it fit and proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent no.2, the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar to consider the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of the order of suspension in the light of the guidelines referred to above and dispose of the same by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.