Chandrakant Manik vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 719 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                         NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     Writ Petition (S) No. 2993 of 2021

     Chandrakant Manik S/o Late Ram Pado (R. P.) Manik, Aged About 56
     Years, R/o Rajkishor Nagar, Phase 1, Sector B, District Bilaspur
     Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home,
     Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

  2. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Police Housing
     Corporation Limited, Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Respondents

For Petitioner                :      Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
For State/Respondent no.1     :      Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                              Order On Board
29.06.2021

1. The relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an

appropriate direction to the respondents to consider whether the

petitioner's suspension needs to be continued or not.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been

placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.09.2017 by the respondent no.2.

The suspension was only on account of the petitioner being subjected

to a criminal prosecution for the office punishable under section 13 (1)

(e) of the PC Act. The criminal trial of the petitioner under the PC Act is

pending consideration before the Special Court at Bilaspur. When the

petitioner was placed under suspension, he was discharging his duties

at Raipur. The petitioner, meanwhile, seems to have been residing at

Bilaspur in order to participate in the criminal case. The petitioner

initially was not given his subsistence allowance for which the petitioner

subsequently approached this Court through WPS No. 3266/2018.

This Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 had ordered the state

authorities to consider immediately so far as granting of subsistence

allowance to the petitioner is concerned and for continuing the same as

long as the petitioner is under suspension. The petitioner thereafter

has been receiving subsistence allowance without any break. In

January, 2021 the respondent no.2 directed the petitioner for reporting

his presence at Raipur as Raipur is the headquarter of the petitioner. It

is alleged that the petitioner has refused to accept his reporting at

Raipur and in the process, the respondents have also stopped further

releasing of subsistence allowance from January, 2021 onwards.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that subject to the

petitioner reporting at Raipur the subsistence allowances shall be

released to the petitioner. State counsel referred to certain requests

made by the petitioner expressing his inability in reporting at Raipur

and also his request for change of headquarter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall

again report his presence at his headquarter, Raipur without fail and

the respondents in turn may be directed to release the subsistence

allowance.

5. The writ petition, so far as the subsistence allowance is concerned, is

accordingly disposed of directing the petitioner to give reporting at his

headquarter, Raipur and the respondents shall thereafter immediately

process the claim of the petitioner for releasing of the subsistence

allowance.

6. Counsel for the petitioner also makes a request that in terms of the

judgment of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its

Secretary and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the respondent

authorities are liable to reconsider whether the suspension of the

petitioner needs to be continued or not since the petitioner has

remained under suspension for a period of beyond 90 days. It is further

contention of the petitioner that even the State Govt. in its circular

dated 02.07.2012 has envisaged that in the event of an order of

suspension prolonging for a period beyond one year, the authorities

need to reconsider whether the suspension needs to be continued or

not.

7. Given the said submission by the counsel for the parties and also

taking into consideration both the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and the circular

dated 02.07.2012 of the State Govt., the respondent no.2 is hereby

directed to reconsider the issue of suspension of the petitioner and

decide as to whether the suspension in the factual backdrop of the

same being in operation since 2017 onwards has to be revoked or not,

keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay

Kumar Choudhary (supra) and also the circular dated 02.07.2012.

8. Let a decision be taken by the respondent no.2 in this regard at the

earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

9. Meanwhile, subject to the petitioner reporting at his headquarter

Raipur, the respondents shall immediately proceed further with the

releasing of subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

Sd/-

P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai