Chattisgarh High Court
Ganesh Ram Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(S) No. 6398 of 2022
Ganesh Ram Jangde, S/o. Late Shri Kartik Ram Jangde, aged about 37
years, R/o. Village - Mainpura, P.S. and Post - Pandariya, District :
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : Its Secretary, Department of
Health and Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S.
and Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Collector, O/o. Collector, Kabirdham, District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), O/o. CMHO,
Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
4. Inquiry Officer/ Medical Officer District Hospital, Kabirdham,
District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
5. Presenting Officer/ Assistant Grade - 3, District Hospital,
Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. R.K. Bhagat, Dy.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
12/10/2022
1. Grievance raised by way of this petition is with regard to non-
revocation of order of suspension dated 29.03.2022, whereby the
petitioner was put under suspension by respondent No.3.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while
working on the post of Rural Health Organizer was put under
suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings initiated
against him. Subsequently, charge-sheet was also issued and
departmental proceedings is pending consideration. He
contended that after issuance of order of suspension more than
90 days have been elapsed and as per the decision of Hon'ble
Sureme Court, the authorities are required to review the order of
suspension after lapse of 90 days from the date of issuance of
order of suspension. Respondent No.3 has not reviewed the
order of suspension of petitioner and have not passed any order
in this regard extending the period of suspension. He placed
reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ajay
Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary
& Another, reported (2015) 7 SCC 291. He submits that
petitioner has also submitted a representation on 23.09.2022,
before respondents No.2 and 3 making prayer for revocation of
his suspension but even that representation is not considered
and decided till date.
3. Leaned counsel for State would submit that respondents will
consider and decide the representation submitted by petitioner
for revocation of his suspension expeditiously.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
5. The grievance raised by petitioner in this petition is with regard to
non-consideration of revocation of his suspension dated
29.03.2022. Perusal of Annexure P-1 would show that petitioner
was put under suspension on 29.03.2022 and as stated by
learned counsel for petitioner disciplinary proceeding was started
and is pending consideration. From the date of issuance of order
of suspension as of now more than 90 days have already been
elapsed. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that
after lapse of 90 days or prior to expiry of 90 days, competent
authority respondent No.3 has not passed any order extending
the period of suspension of petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has considered the
issue of keeping the employee under suspension beyond period
of 90 days, and held as under :-
"20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an
accused could be detained for continuous and
consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial
scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains
a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing
the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of
an accused person beyond period of 90 days where
the investigation relates to an offence punishable with
death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term
of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60
days where the investigation relates to any other
offence. Drawing support from the observations
contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh vs.
State of Bihar, 1986 (4) SCC 481, and more so of the
Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to
extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section
167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to moderate Suspension
Orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary inquiries
also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it
necessary that a person be released from
incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though
accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a
fortiori suspension should not be continued after the
expiry of the similar period especially when a
memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet has not been
served on the suspended person. It is true that the
proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal
freedom, but respect and preservation of human
dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also
be placed on the same pedestal.
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."
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in clear terms has observed that
employee can not be kept under suspension for inordinate period
beyond 90 days.
7. In view of above facts and circumstances, where the petitioner
was put under suspension on 29.03.2022 and no further orders
have been passed for extending the period of suspension by
respondent No.3 as stated by counsel for petitioner, he has
already made representation, before respondent No.2 and 3 for
revocation of his suspension and also the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra),
respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of petitioner for
revocation of his suspension within a period of 3 weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court keeping in
mind, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay
Kumar Choudhary (supra).
8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with aforesaid
observations and directions.
1. Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram
