Tiju Ram Bhandari vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2531 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Writ Petition (S) No. 2731 of 2022

      Tiju Ram Bhandari S/o Shri K. K. Bhandari, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
      Sana City, Korin Bhatha, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture And Fisheries
       Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya-Raipur (C.G.)
       492002.

   2. Director, Department Of Fisheries, Fourth Floor, (B- Block) Indrawati
       Bhavan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 492002.

   3. The Inquiry Officer (Dy Director - Fisheries), Department Of
       Fisheries, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

                                                           ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 20.04.2022

1. The present writ petition seems to have been filed being aggrieved of

the prolonged suspension that the petitioner has been placed. The

petitioner who was otherwise working under the respondents as an

Assistant Fishery Officer was placed under suspension vide order

dated 07.08.2020 contemplating a departmental enquiry. Charge

sheet was subsequently issued on 21.09.2020 to which the petitioner

submitted his reply. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority appointed

an Enquiry Officer on 29.12.2020. However, there has been no

further development beyond that and it is now more than 20 months

that the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner referred 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

stating that the respondents are incumbent upon to reconsider

whether the suspension needs to be continued any further or not.

Further contention of the petitioner is that in an identical situation the

respondents have already revoked the order of suspension of an

identically placed employee under the respondents who is also facing

a similar departmental enquiry.

3. Given the said submission by the counsel for petitioner, it would be

relevant at this juncture to take note of paragraph-21 of the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary

(supra) which for ready reference is reproduced hereinunder:

"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 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."

4. Taking note of the contention made by the learned counsel for

petitioner that in an identical situation the respondents have already

revoked the order of suspension in a case of similarly placed

employee and also considering the fact that it is now more than 20

months that the petitioner continues under suspension, the

respondent no.2 is directed to immediately reconsider the case of

petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and also taking note of the

fact that the petitioner is not to be blamed for the prolonging of

departmental enqiury. Let a decision in this regard be taken at the

earliest preferably within an outer limit of 45 days from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai