Chattisgarh High Court
Mohit Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 May, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 3435 of 2022
1. Mohit Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Ram Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 44 Years R/o
Q.No. 1 B, Street 32, Sector 10, Bhilai, Durg (Chhattisgarh) Pin 490006.,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise),
Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Gst Building, North Block, Sector
19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The District Excise Officer/ District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Marketing
Corporation Ltd. (CSMCL), Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Shri Amrito Das, Addl. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
11.05.2022
1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of suspension dated 11.02.2021.
2. The challenge is on two grounds, firstly beyond a period of 90 days since
charge sheet has not been issued, the respondents ought to have revoked
the order of suspension. Secondly, in the light of judgment of Supreme
Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its
Secretary and Another, 2015(7)SCC 291, the respondents are supposed
to reconsider the continuation of the suspension.
3. During the course of the hearing it has been revealed that subsequently in
June, 2021 the petitioner has been issued with a charge sheet and
thereafter the departmental enquiry has also been initiated and it is in the
process for finalization.
4. Nonetheless, it is for the respondents to reconsider in the light of the
judgment in case of Ajay Kumar (Supra) wherein in paragraph 21 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/Chargesheet is not
served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the
Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet 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
concerned person to any Department in any of its offices
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
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. Given the said facts, the writ petition as of now stands disposed of
directing the respondent No.1 to reconsider the issue as to whether the
services of the petitioner needs to be further placed under suspension or
not. Let an appropriate decision in this regard be taken within an outer limit
of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
inder
