Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Khuntey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(S) No. 6491 of 2022
Suresh Khuntey S/o Shri Same Lal Khuntey Aged About 34 Years R/o
Industrial Area Kharmora, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Korba (C.G.)
3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Korba District Korba
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
13/10/2022
1. Grievance raised by way of this petition is with regard to non-
revocation of order of suspension dated 06.12.2021, whereby the
petitioner was put under suspension by respondent No.3.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was
working as Panchayat Secretary at Village Manikpur, Block -
Podi Uproda, District - Korba (C.G.) was put under suspension
on 06.12.2021 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.
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 21.07.2022 &
26.09.2022, before respondents No.2 and 3 making prayer for
revocation of his suspension but even those representations
were not considered and decided till date.
3. Leaned counsel for State would submit that order of suspension
is passed by Office of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat,
Korba and respondent No.3 is competent authority, which is not
represented by State.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
5. Perusal of order Annexure P-1 would show that the order of
suspension is dated 06.12.2021. Other documents would also
show that departmental enquiry proceeding has been initiated
against petitioner and as stated by petitioner it is not concluded.
From the date of issuance of order of suspension as of now more
than 10 months 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 06.12.2021 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 4 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
