Chattisgarh High Court
Satyaprakash Madhukar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4051 of 2021
Satyaprakash Madhukar S/o Shri Lalsay Madhukar Aged About 28 Years
Than Posted As Sub Engineer Nagar Panchayat, Patharia, District
Mungeli, R/o Village Khairakundi, Post Sarvandevri, Police Station
Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary (Municipal Establishment
Branch), Urban Administration And Development, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Special Secretary Development Of Urban Administration And
Development, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Director Urban Administration And Development, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
5. Joint Director Urban Administration And Development, Regional Office,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Pathariya, District Mungeli.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate
For State/Res. No.1 to 5 : Mr. Suyash Dhar, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
06/08/2021
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
of the prolonged suspension which the petitioner is undergoing.
2. The petitioner in the instant case was working as a Sub Engineer
under the Nagar Panchayat, Patharia which falls under respondent
no.6. The petitioner's services was placed under suspension vide
order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the respondent no.3. The order
of suspension was on account of petitioner getting implicated in a
criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Contention of the petitioner is that it is now around 2 years time that
petitioner has been placed under suspension and therefore the
same needs to be reconsidered in the light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of "Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union
of India, through its Secretary & Another" (2015) 7 SCC 291.
4. Further contention of the petitioner is that the criminal case which
was initiated against the petitioner is progressing at a very slow
pace, it may take a considerable amount of time in the conclusion of
the said proceeding and order of suspension therefore needs to be
reconsidered keeping in view this aspect also.
5. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the observation
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary(Supra) wherein in paragraph 21 it has been held as
under :-
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if
within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet
is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the
Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned
order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.
As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the
concerned person to any Department in any of its offices
within or outside the State so as to sever any local or
personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse
for obstructing the investigation against him. The
Government may also prohibit him from contacting any
person, or handling records and documents till the stage of
his having to prepare his defence. We think this will
adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of
human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also
preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution.
We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been
reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and
to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition
of a limit on the period of suspension has not been
discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the
interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central
Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation
departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands
superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations and directives given by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent no.3 is therefore at this
juncture directed to reconsider whether to continue the petitioner
under suspension and considering the entire factual matrix of the
matter, decide as to whether the order of suspension needs
revocation or not?
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion so far
as merits of the case is concerned. Respondent no.3 is free to take
an appropriate decision considering the overall merits of the case.
8. Let a decision be taken in this regard by the respondent no.3 at the
earliest preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ
petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Rohit
