Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 808 (JHR)

Uma Shankar Malviya v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-05-04

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing letter dated 26.02.2014 whereby an order has been issued by the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department to suspend the present petitioner in terms of Rule 3 (a) of the Civil Services Classification Rules. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that a criminal case being R.C. Case No. 5 (A)/2010 was initiated against the petitioner, in which, petitioner went to custody on 13.03.2012, as a consequence thereof the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 20.04.2012. After the arrest of the petitioner, he approached the competent Court for grant of bail, which was granted vide order dated 21.05.2012 and thereafter he approached the respondents-authorities for revocation of his suspension, on the ground that the similarly situated co-accused who was also taken into custody and released on bail, his suspension have been revoked. It has been submitted that thereafter the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 28.12.2013. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the aforesaid revocation, the petitioner carried out the work so entrusted to him, but, out of the blue a letter dated 25.02.2014 was issued by the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department to Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department to suspend the present petitioner. It has been submitted that in compliance thereof the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 26.02.2014 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, but, till date, no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that suspension even in contemplation of departmental proceeding cannot go for a indefinite period and it has time and again been deprecated by Hon''ble Apex Court. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P. & Anr as reported in (1999) 6 SCC 257 and further in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr as reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . 4. After some argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even if a direction is given to the respondents-authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding within a stipulated time frame, the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed. 5. 4. After some argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even if a direction is given to the respondents-authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding within a stipulated time frame, the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not raise serious dispute to that course of action. 6. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without delving into the merit of the case, it would be apposite to dispose of the writ application with a direction to the respondents-authorities, more particularly, the disciplinary authority to conclude the departmental proceeding as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today. It is made clear that if within that period departmental proceeding is not concluded the order of suspension shall automatically stand vacated. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.