Chattisgarh High Court
Dipak Singh Namdev vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 8232 of 2019
Dipak Singh Namdev S/o Shri Shivkumar Namdev, Aged About 40
Years, Occupation Field Officer, District Antyavasai, Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh, Present Address Sheetla Ward, Kabir Para, Kabirdham
District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Scheduled Tribes And
Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner, Scheduled Tribes And Scheduled Caste
Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta
Evum Vikas Nigam, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
4. The Collector And President Of District Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas
Samiti Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
5. The Collector And President Of District Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas
Samiti Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate
For State : Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate
For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Devesh Verma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
09.06.2021
1. Aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 21.01.2019 the present
writ petition has been filed. The petitioner has been placed under
suspension on account of the petitioner getting implicated in a
criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
2. The Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, today when
the matter is taken up, is that the petitioner has been placed under
suspension since 21.01.2019 i.e. it is about 2 ½ years now that he is
continuing under suspension. According to the petitioner, though he
has been suspended by the authorities but no disciplinary proceeding
has been initiated against him till date and that the criminal case
which is filed against the petitioner also is progressing at a very slow
pace coupled with the effect of pandemic the progress of the criminal
case has further got slowed down. Counsel for the petitioner
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary
and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 submits the authorities are
required to reconsider as to whether the petitioner needs to be
continued under suspension or not. He submits that the authorities
concerned have to take a decision in the light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
3. Both the learned counsel appearing for the State as also for the
respondent no.3 submit that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court the authorities can be directed to reconsider as to
whether the suspension of the petitioner needs to be continued or it
needs to be revoked.
4. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) where
in paragraph-21 it has been held as under:
"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 officers 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 the 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."
5. In all those cases where the period of suspension is beyond 90 days
the authorities concerned have to reconsider whether the suspension
order needs to be continued or not.
6. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) the writ petition at this juncture
stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 to take a
decision and pass an order deciding whether the suspension order of
the petitioner needs to be revoked or not. While deciding the same,
the authorities shall bear in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). It is expected that the
respondent no.3 would take a decision at the earliest preferably
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
P. Sam Koshy
Judge
Khatai
