Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1968 (JHR)

Sudhansu Shekhar Mehta v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-11-16

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 13.06.2016 by which he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Block Education Extension Officer on 20.03.1991. He was promoted on 18.08.2009 to the post of Area Education Officer and he was posted at Dhanbad. When he was posted as District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar, on an allegation that applications of invalid candidates were accepted for Teachers'' Eligibility Test, in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, vide Resolution dated 13.06.2016, he was suspended. During the period of suspension he was directed to report at the headquarters, which is office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that a departmental proceeding has now been initiated vide Resolution dated 09.08.2016, which cannot continue for an indefinite period and it must be concluded within a reasonable time. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that after 09.08.2016 the departmental proceeding has not progressed. 4. In its affidavit dated 21.06.2017, the respondent-State has pleaded that after Notification dated 13.06.2016 was issued, the petitioner did not give his joining at the headquarters. A Press-note was issued by the Department on 19.01.2017 in four leading newspapers widely circulated in the State directing the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer still, he did not appear. It is pleaded that on 06.02.2017, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has again reported that the petitioner has not joined the headquarters. These allegations have been refuted by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 29.06.2017. 5. Be that as it may, these facts cannot be ascertained by the writ court. Primarily, these facts may be relevant for deciding whether the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance under Rule 96 of the Jharkhand Service Code or not. The fact remains that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner must continue in accordance with the extant rules. In view of the serious allegations of illegality and forgery committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension dated 13.06.2016, and the petitioner is directed to give his joining before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi within one week, if not already tendered. In view of the serious allegations of illegality and forgery committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension dated 13.06.2016, and the petitioner is directed to give his joining before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi within one week, if not already tendered. He shall file his reply to the charge-memo which, it is stated, has been served upon him through letter dated 06.06.2016, within four weeks from today. The departmental proceeding shall continue in accordance with law and the order of suspension of the petitioner may be revisited by the competent authority, if provided under the extant rules. 6. The writ-petition stands disposed of.