Chattisgarh High Court
Nikhilesh Tembhurne vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 October, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6404 of 2022
Nikhilesh Tembhurne S/o Gangadhar Tembhurne Aged About 41
Years Resident Of Ward No. 2, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food And Civil
Supplies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
3. Collector District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
______________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For State : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy.A.G.
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
14/10/2022
Heard.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition is
filed raising a limited grievance of non- revocation of order of
suspension of the petitioner after expiry of 90 days without there
being any further order for extension of period of suspension.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner
was suspended vide order dated 04.03.2022 on the ground that
the petitioner was involved in one criminal case. After passing of
order of suspension, charge sheet was issued against him and
the departmental proceedings are still continuing. He submits
that period of 90 days has already been elapsed much earlier
but respondent authority is not reviewing whether it requires any
extension and if the extension of the period of suspension is not
ordered then in the light of judgment passed in the case of Ajay
Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary &
Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 291, petitioner is to be reinstated in service.
3. Learned counsel for the State- respondent would submit that
criminal case registered against the petitioner whether decided
or pending is not reflected from pleading in the writ petition. She
also submits that unless writ petitioner pleads that departmental
inquiry is still continuing and not concluded, petitioner is having
no case. It is for the authority to consider claim of the petitioner
after considering all aspects.
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
(supra) has 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 person concerned 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. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for
the petitioner as also in the light of the observation made by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary
(supra) as extracted herein-above, I am of the view that this writ
petition at this stage can be disposed of directing respondent
No.2 to consider and decide claim of the petitioner with respect
to revocation of order of his suspension dated 04.03.2022 within
period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order,
keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) .
6. With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition
stands disposed of.
7. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/------/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
