Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 96 (HP)

Ravi Kumar v. State of H. P.

2024-01-12

RANJAN SHARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) That an appropriate writs, orders and directions may kindly be issued and the impugned orders dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) and 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and se-aside as without review office order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) has become redundant and therefore, cannot at all be issued. (ii). That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be also issued, directing the respondents to post the petitioner at Government Senior Secondary School, Baneta, District Chamba, H.P. where the petitioner was posted before the suspension, in the interest of justice.” 2. The matter was listed on 28.12.2023, when, this Court passed the following order:- CWP No.10805 of 2023 Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Let reply be filed within two weeks. List on 12.01.2024, as prayed for. CMP No.19605 of 2023 Notice in the aforesaid terms. 2. The petitioner is a TGT (Arts) while working at Government Senior Secondary School Baneta, District Chamba, an FIR was registered against him under Sections 279, 337, 304AA of the Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the petitioner was detained in custody on 11.05.2023. Keeping in view his detention, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 12.05.2023, as per the orders issued by Respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Shimla on 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was enlarged on bail in terms of the enlargement order issued by this Court on 27.06.2023. 3. On 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) the Respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Shimla fixed the head-quarters of the petitioner, in the office of Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba, District Chamba. 4. Though the Head-quarter of the petitioner was fixed in the office of Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba, District Chamba on 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) yet, in terms of the communication dated 19.12.2023, issued by Respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, his head-quarter has now been re-fixed in Directorate of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla on 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-4). 5. Though the Head-quarter of the petitioner was fixed in the office of Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba, District Chamba on 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) yet, in terms of the communication dated 19.12.2023, issued by Respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, his head-quarter has now been re-fixed in Directorate of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla on 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-4). 5. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once on suspension, the head-quarter was fixed in the office of Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba, then, there is no rationale reason and logic in re-fixing the head-quarter of the petitioner in the Directorate of Elementary Education, Shimla, which is based on extraneous considerations, only to, harass and victimize the petitioner. 6. In view of the above facts, the petitioner has made out a prima facie for grant of interim protection. Accordingly, the communication/ order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) shall remain stayed, till next date of hearing. Matter be listed on 12.01.2024.” 3. In compliance to the orders dated 28.12.2023 the State authorities have furnished the instated stating therein that the order dated 22nd December, 2023 (Annexure P-4) shifting the headquarter from Deputy Director Elementary Education, Chamba to Directorate of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla has been withdrawn. 4. Now, the only grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 30 th May, 2023 (Annexure P-1) placing the petitioner under suspension remains to be adjudicated. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel submits that the failure to review the suspension before the expiry of 90 days and failure to extend the suspension, on review shall invalidate the suspension, on expiry of 90 days period i.e. 30. 08.2023. On expiry of 90 days and the suspension have become illegal and inoperative, the petitioner is entitled to all benefits and any review made beyond or after expiry of 90 days shall not validate the illegality. The respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for review as mandated by Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and as required by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 6661 of 2006 titled as Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali decided on15.12.2009. The State Counsel does not dispute the above factual and legal position. 5. The State Counsel does not dispute the above factual and legal position. 5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to examine the suspension order dated 30th May, 2023 (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner in the light of the mandate of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and also the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipak Mali’s case {supra} and in case, the suspension was not reviewed before 90 days period, as required by Rules, then the suspension had become inoperative and nonest and release all eligible admissible benefits to the petitioner within three weeks from today. In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.