Premkant Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4110 Chatt

                                         1

                                                                            NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          W.P.(S). No. 6469 of 2021
Premkant Pandey S/o Late Dinmani Prasad Pandey Aged About 52 Years
Presently Working As Patwari, Halka No. 30, Dharampura, Tahsil Jagdalpur
District Bastar Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ---- Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department,
       Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District
       Raipur Chhattisgarh
2.     Commissioner Bastar Division, District Bastar Chhattisgarh
3.     Collector (Land Records) Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh
4.     Sub Divisional     Officer    (Revenue)     Jagdalpur,    District   Bastar
       Chhattisgarh
5.     Tahsildar Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Respondents

For Petitioner                      : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate
For Respondents                     : Mr. Kunal Das, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order On Board

29/06/2022

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the non-

consideration of the petitioner; so far as the petitioner being placed

under suspension is concerned.

2. The petitioner in the instant case working as a Patwari. In the course of

discharge of duties on account of some alleged misconduct, the

petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.09.2021.

The respondents have thereafter not issued a charge sheet to the

petitioner till date. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that though

more than nine months have been passed, the petitioner's service is

still placed under suspension. The counsel for the petitioner referring

to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay

Kumar Choudhary (2015) 7 SCC 291 wherein the Supreme Court has

held that the employee cannot be kept under suspension for inordinate

long duration. The employee who has been placed under suspension,

the suspension needs to be reviewed after a period of ninety days by

the authorities taking into consideration whether there is any necessity

in continuing with the suspension of the petitioner or whether there is

any prejudice that is going to cause to the department in case if he is

taken back in service by revocation. For ready reference in paragraph

no. 21 of the aforesaid judgment 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/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. We recognise 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."

3. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that without the issuance

of the charge sheet to the petitioner, there does not seem to be any

further development in the disciplinary proceedings and therefore on

this ground also there is no further need for keeping the petitioner

under suspension.

4. The State Counsel at this juncture submits that let the writ petition be

disposed off directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to reconsider the

aspect of suspension of the petitioner keeping in view the judgment of

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

(supra).

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the counsel

appearing on either side and also keeping in view the observation

made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar

Choudhary in paragraph no. 21 which is reproduced in the preceding

paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition at this

juncture can be disposed off directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to

reconsider whether there is any necessity in continuing the petitioner

under suspension, particularly taking note of the fact that he has

already remained under suspension for almost six months now.

6. Let an appropriate decision be taken within a period of thirty days from

the date of receipt of copy of this Order. It shall be the duty of the

petitioner to apprise the respondent no. 2 & 3; so far as the Order

passed by this Court is concerned.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed

off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram