Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Baran Chaurasia vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(S) No. 627 of 2023
Ram Baran Chaurasia S/o T.R. Chaurasia, Aged About 58 Years
Presently Posted As Sr. Sub Engineer, Water Resource Division,
Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2. Engineer In Chief, Mahanadi Project, Water Resources
Department, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department,
Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. R.K. Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
20/01/2023
1. Grievance raised by way of this petition is with regard to non-
revocation of order of suspension dated 30.06.2022, whereby the
petitioner was put under suspension by respondent No.1 nor
decided the representation submitted by petitioner in this regard.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while
working as Senior Sub-Engineer (Civil), Water Resources
Department was involved in a criminal case registered by Anti
Corruption Bureau. Immediately, thereafter, petitioner was
suspended vide order dated 30.06.2022. Petitioner after his
released on bail had submitted an application before respondent
No.4 for reviewing/revocation of order of suspension on the
ground that 90 days has already been completed from the date
of passing of order of suspension. However, till date respondent
No.1 has not considered and decided the application. 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 19.09.2022,
before respondents No.1 making prayer for revocation of his
suspension but non of the representations were considered and
decided till date.
3. Leaned counsel for State would submit that petitioner has already
submitted representation for reviewing/revocation of order of
suspension, it will be considered and decided in accordance with
law if not decided.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
5. Annexure P-1 is order dated 30.06.2022, whereby petitioner was
put under suspension under Rule 9 (2) (a) of Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Petitioner
submitted representation on 19.09.2022 after completion of 90
days from the date of order of suspension vide Annexure P-3. As
submitted by learned counsel for petitioner till date charge memo
is not issued to him nor representation is decided. From the date
of issuance of order of suspension as of now more than 7 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.1 has not taken any
decision on representation 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 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 30.06.2022 and no further orders
have been passed for revocation of suspension or order
extending the period of suspension by respondent No.1, as
stated by counsel for petitioner, he has already made
representation, before respondent No.1 for revocation of his
suspension and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), respondent No.1 is
directed to consider the claim of petitioner on his representation
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
