Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Alekh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4107 of 2021
1. Dr. Alekh Kumar Sahu S/o Kangali Ram Sahu Aged About 51 Years
Working As Assistant Professor In Law Department , Pt. Ravishankar
Shukla University , Raipur, R/o Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Viswavidyalaya
Parisar, Government Quarter, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur ,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Registrar Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate
For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.
For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
11/08/2021
1. The present writ petition has been filed, aggrieved of the order of
suspension dated 17.05.2018. The petitioner was placed under
suspension on account of his getting implicated in three criminal
cases i.e. Crime Nos. 178/2018, 64/2018 & 74/2018 for the offences
punishable under Section 420 & 34 of the IPC in all the cases.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the three criminal
cases were personal disputes inter-se between the petitioner and
some third party on account of certain personal transactions where
the cheques issued by the petitioner got dishonoured.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner is that he has not got implicated
in the criminal case on account of any misconduct committed in the
course of discharge of his duties under the respondents. It is also the
contention of the petitioner that two of the cases have already been
disposed of after entering into a compromise between the disputing
parties and only one case is left which is under consideration.
4. The further contention of the petitioner is that though he was placed
under suspension on 17.05.2018, till date there is no disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondents and
as such it is more than three years. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the authorities concerned now should reconsider
whether the petitioner should be continued under suspension or
whether the order of suspension needs revocation, particularly in the
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the University the respondent No. 2
submits that under the provisions of Statue 31 where there is a
clause which envisages that in the event of an employee/officer
getting implicated in a criminal case, he is liable to be placed under
suspension.
6. Be that as it may, it would be relevant at this juncture to consider the
judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary (Supra) wherein paragraph 21 of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has 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/charge-sheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet 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 person concerned to any
department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to
sever any local or personal contract 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.
7. The aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it
mandatory for all those disciplinary authority and other authorities
who have placed an employee under suspension and the period of
suspension travels beyond 90 days. In the instant case, the period of
suspension has crossed more than three years.
8. What is also striking at this juncture is that there is no allegation of
misconduct by the petitioner in the course of his discharging of duty
under the respondent No. 2. No charge-sheet & show-cause notice
also has been initiated contemplating disciplinary proceedings. One
also needs to bear in mind that under the precarious condition that
has erupted pursuant to the Covid-19 pandemic, the criminal cases
pending before the Court may also take some more time for final
conclusion.
9. In the given factual backdrop whether it would be feasible and
necessary to continue keeping the petitioner under suspension
without taking work from him and the authorities also should keep in
mind that taking the petitioner back in service may also be fruitful
both to the institution as also to the students under the respondent
No. 2 in the department where the petitioner was working.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition at this juncture is
disposed of directing the respondent No. 2 to reconsider the question
of the petitioner's suspension taking into consideration the judgment
of the Supreme Court and the intention and object behind this the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had. Let an appropriate decision be taken at
the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
11. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
J-
