Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 326 (JHR)

Rajiv Ranjan Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2021-03-22

S.N.PATHAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with several prayers, however, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture confines his prayer for a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a specific period and if the same is not concluded, the suspension of petitioner be revoked. 3. As per the factual matrix, pursuant to the notification published in the employment exchange for appointment of stenographers under respondent- Department, the petitioner and another person namely, Sushri Suchita Ekka applied for the same and upon found suitable for the job, they were selected and appointed vide office order dated 23.08.1988 to the said post. Thereafter, on false allegation that appropriate selection process was not followed, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 08.06.2019 and subsequently, removed from service vide order dated 18.06.2019. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent-authorities for consideration of his case. Subsequently, a departmental meeting was held on 03.02.2020, in presence of respondent No. 3 and other Officers of the concerned Department, whereby it was decided that a prima facie case of illegal appointment of petitioner is proved but as the due process of law has not been followed while removing the petitioner from service, the order dated 18.06.2019 was recalled and petitioner was taken back into service vide order dated 13.02.2020. Thereafter, on the basis of recommendation made in the meeting dated 03.02.2020, a fresh departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 19.02.2020, the petitioner was put under suspension. Though the enquiry has already been concluded and the enquiry report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer but till date neither the final order has been passed nor the order of suspension has been revoked. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been put under suspension w.e.f. 08.06.2019 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Assailing the impugned order dated 19.02.2020, learned counsel further argues that in the order itself it has been mentioned that the departmental proceeding shall be concluded within a period of 105 days but almost a year has been passed but the same has not been concluded as yet. Assailing the impugned order dated 19.02.2020, learned counsel further argues that in the order itself it has been mentioned that the departmental proceeding shall be concluded within a period of 105 days but almost a year has been passed but the same has not been concluded as yet. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015), reported in Manu/SC/0161/2015 and another judgment passed by this Court in case of Satya Prakash Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P.S. No. 2194 of 2020, reported in Manu/Jh/0135/2021. Learned counsel further argues that since the departmental proceedings has not yet been concluded, a direction be given to the respondents to vacate the order of suspension and conclude the departmental proceeding at the earliest. 5. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, AC to learned AAG-IV vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that admittedly petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding as it was found that initial appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Learned counsel further argues that there was a specific order to conclude the departmental proceeding preferably within a period of 105 days but the same could not have been completed because of situation arising out of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. Learned counsel further argues that already charge-sheet has been submitted and enquiry has been concluded and enquiry report has been submitted and the respondents are likely to pass a final order in the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further argues that reliance of the petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Hon’ble Court is of no help to him as in those cases even charge-sheet was not submitted but in the present case enquiry report has been submitted and as such, the present case is distinguishable from the judgments relied by petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that any employee cannot be put under suspension for an indefinite period. The departmental proceeding once initiated by submission of charge-sheet has to come to a logical end. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that any employee cannot be put under suspension for an indefinite period. The departmental proceeding once initiated by submission of charge-sheet has to come to a logical end. The similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126 , in which the Hon’ble Court has held that: “13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.” Same view was reiterated by this Hon’ble Court in case of Chandra Bhushan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2000) 1 PLJR 670 . 7. Admittedly, there was specific order to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of 105 days but this Court is fully satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Respondent in not concluding the proceeding within time as the entire country was in grip of COVID-19 Pandemic and the entire Office work was put to a halt because of the lockdown. Though the responsibility is with the State to conclude the departmental proceeding once initiated but as the respondents have filed charge-sheet and even the enquiry report has been submitted, I hereby direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the said period, the suspension of the petitioner shall be automatically revoked. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.