Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 116 (MP)

Lakhan Singh v. State of M. P.

2021-02-05

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2021
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- “(I) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the relevant records from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. (II) Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondent No.2 to forth with consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of his suspension. (III) Hon’ble Court further may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to revoke the suspension and reinstate the petitioner back in service alongwith all consequential benefits. (IV) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted as Reader in the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Katni. The Crime No.31/2019 registered at Police Station Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Bhopal for the offence under sections 7,13(1)(b) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended Provisions) (hereinafter shall be referred to as the “P.C.Act”) has been registered against him and accordingly he has been placed under suspension. It is submitted that as per the circulars issued from time to time, the authority placing the employee under suspension is required to review the order of suspension periodically to consider as to whether the prolonged suspension of the petitoner is warranted or not. The petitioner has made repeated representations to the respondent No.2 seeking revocation of the order of suspension but till date no decision has been taken and, therefore, the present petition has been filed. It is also submitted that the action of the respondents in continuing with the suspension of the petitioner is contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147. 3. Challenging the non-action of the respondents in not considering the representations, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-action on the part of respondent No.2 is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the review of suspension order is necessary to find out as to whether the continuation of suspension of the employee is necessary or not. It is further submitted that so far as the criminal investigation is concerned, no charge sheet has been filed inspite of the lapse of nearly two years. 4. A Crime No.31/2019 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station S.P.E (Lokayukt) Bhopal on the complaint made by one Krishnakant Mishra alleging that the unauthorised construction was being done on a runnel and on the application of the complainant filed under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub Divisional Magistrate by order dated 22.1.2019 had directed the parties to maintain the status-quo till 7.2.2019. When the complainant requested the petitioner to place the file before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for extension of stay then he demanded Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and assured that if the amount is paid then he would get the order as desired by the petitioner. A written complaint was made to the Investigating Officer on 25.2.2019 and the complainant was directed to record the conversation and accordingly on 25.2.2019 itself, the conversation with the petitioner was got recorded and during negotiation, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.5000/- to the petitioner and an amount of Rs.2000/- was paid immediately whereas the remaining amount of Rs.3000/- was agreed to be paid at a later stage and accordingly the trap was made and the offence has been registered. 5. One thing is clear that the petitioner has not been placed under suspension on the ground of any departmental misconduct but he has been placed under suspension on account of registration of a criminal offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended Provisions). So far as the suspension is concerned, the relationship of employer and employee is not severed but the employee is forbidden from discharging his official duties so that the employee may not get custody or control of the papers or may not take advantage of his position. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), has held as under ;- “19. During suspension, the relationship of master and servant continues between the employer and the employee. However, the employee is forbidden to perform his official duties. Thus, a suspension order does not put an end to the service. Suspension means the action of debarring for the time being from a function or privilege or temporary deprivation of working in the office. During suspension, the relationship of master and servant continues between the employer and the employee. However, the employee is forbidden to perform his official duties. Thus, a suspension order does not put an end to the service. Suspension means the action of debarring for the time being from a function or privilege or temporary deprivation of working in the office. In certain cases, suspension may cause stigma even after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by the criminal Court, but it cannot be treated as a punishment even by any stretch of imagination in the strict legal sense (Vide O.P.Gupta v. Union of India and Capt. M.P aul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd).” 7. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are under obligation to periodically review the necessity of continuation of the suspension order is concerned, as already pointed out, the petitioner has been placed under suspension on account of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification and an offence under sections 7,13(1)(b) & 13(2) of the P.C.Act (Amended Provisions) has been registered. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C.Sareen v. C.B.I. Chandigarh reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 has held as under :- “12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction, it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction the fall out would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public officer could continue to hold such public office even without the help of a court order suspending the conviction.” 9. The corruption is a menace to the civilized society and if a person has been trapped while accepting the illegal gratification then that illegal act by itself is sufficient to place the suspect under suspension so that he may not misuse his official position any further. So far as the allegations which have been made against the petitioner in a criminal case are concerned, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority to find out as to whether version of the petitioner or the prosecution is true. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision under the Special Police Establishment Act to bring his case at par with the C.B.I.(Crime) Manual 2005. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision under the Special Police Establishment Act to bring his case at par with the C.B.I.(Crime) Manual 2005. The petitioner has relied upon the Circular dated 28.1.2013 issued by the General Administration Department, Bhopal as well as the Circular dated 9.4.2019 issued by the General Administration Department, Bhopal to submit that the Committee is under an obligation to review the necessity of continuation of the suspension order. However, in Clause 4 of the Circular dated 28.1.2013, it is specifically mentioned that the employees against whom the charge sheet has been filed by the Lokayukt/Economic Offences Wing or any other Agency then it is not clear as to whether the executive instructions would be applicable on them or not. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigation is pending for the last two years and according to the petitioner, the charge sheet has not been filed. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of directing the respondents to review the necessity of continuation of the suspension, it is directed that the respondents shall obtain further instructions from the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Bhopal with regard to the stage of investigation and would also seek instructions as to whether the continuation of suspension of the petitioner is required or not and after obtaining the instructions from the Director General of Police Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) Bhopal, the Committee/Competent Authority shall decide the representation made by the petitioner for revocation of his suspension. 12.With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed of.