Laxman Gain vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1338 Chatt

                                           -1-


                                                                                    NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                          Writ Petition (S) No. 1713 of 2022

   1. Laxman Gain S/o Late Shri Sudhanshu Gain Aged About 33 Years R/o
        Kanchan Vihar, Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                                       ---Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police
        Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa
        Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)
   2.   Inspector General Of Police (IGP) Office Of Inspector General Of Police,
        Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
   3.   Superintendent Of Police (SP) Rail Office Of Superintendent Of Police
        (Rail), Station Chowk, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
   4.   Enquiry Officer/deputy Superintendent Of Police Rail, Office Of
        Superintendent Of Police (Rail), Station Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
        (C.G.)
   5.   Presenting Officer/ Departmental Inspector Rail, Office Of Superintendent
        Of Police (Rail), Station Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                     ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey and Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocates.

For Respondents/State : Shri Suyash Dhar, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

15.03.2022

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

suspension of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has been

placed under suspension on 09.10.2020 as such it is about 1 and ½ years

that the petitioner is under suspension.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India

through its Secretary and Another, 2015(7)SCC 291, the respondents are

required to reconsider the claim of the petitioner so far as continuation of

the suspension is concerned. According to the petitioner, beyond a period

of 90 days if the respondents intend to continue the suspension, there has

to be a reconsideration by the authorities concerned and a speaking order

be passed in the light of the judgment in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary

(Supra).

3. The State counsel, on the other hand, submits that it is a case where the

petitioner was also involved in a criminal case and there is an FIR lodged

against him and that was the reason that the petitioner was subjected to a

disciplinary proceedings and the departmental enquiry itself is in progress

and therefore no order as such has been taken by the authorities

concerned.

4. Be that as it may, a plain reading of paragraph 21 of the judgment of

Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), it clearly

mandates that in the event of the period of suspension exceeding 90 days,

there is a requirement by the disciplinary authority to reconsider as to

whether the suspension period has to be continued or not, and whether

the services of the petitioner who is under suspension have to be taken

back in service or not. Such a decision has not been taken by the

respondents in the instant case.

5. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition as of

now stands disposed of directing the respondents No.2 to 5 to take an

appropriate decision so far as the requirement of the mandate as per the

judgment in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) is concerned. The

respondent authorities are also further directed to ensure that the

departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is concluded at the

earliest. Let an appropriate decision in this respect be taken by the

respondents within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt

of copy of this order.

6. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion so far as

entitlement of the petitioner is concerned. The same be decided strictly in

accordance with the materials available on record.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder