Nabin Kishor Chouhan vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2561 Del

$~11.

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(C) 2897/2016

        NABIN KISHOR CHOUHAN                      ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. G.D. Chotmurada, Advocate with
                     Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate

                           versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS                        ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                           ORDER

% 01.04.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for issuing directions to the respondents/SSB to suspend the sentence

awarded against him on 19.11.2015, pending the appeal filed by him before

the Appellate Authority on 11/13.02.2016 against the impugned order dated

19.11.2015 passed under Section 131 of the SSB Act. Further, the petitioner

has prayed for issuing directions to the respondents to refrain from evicting

his family from the government accommodation allotted to him, till the

pendency of the appeal.

2. This is the third round of litigation initiated by the petitioner on the

same cause of action. Prior hereto, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C)

260/2016, for seeking suspension of the sentence imposed upon him vide

order dated 19.11.2015, whereunder he was found guilty of the charge under

Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under

Section 43 of the SSB Act, 2007 and awarded a punishment of rigorous

imprisonment for one year in civil prison and dismissal from service under

Section 51(1)(b)(c) of the SSB Act, 2007. The aforesaid petition was,

however, dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.01.2016 with liberty

granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3/IG to seek

suspension of the sentence, to enable him to file an appeal in terms of the

SSB Act and Rules.

3. In less than one week from the date of passing of the aforesaid order,

the petitioner had filed a second petition, registered as W.P.(C) 802/2016,

assailing the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the respondent No.2/Director

General, SSB (Appellate Authority), rejecting his request for suspension of

sentence. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.02.2016,

holding inter alia that the petitioner would be entitled to obtain legal advise

for drafting a statutory appeal for which the respondents were directed to

give access to the lawyer engaged by him in jail, while declining to suspend

the sentence imposed upon him. The petitioner was also granted liberty to

file a statutory appeal within the stipulated timeline and the respondents

were directed that once the said appeal is filed, the same shall be considered

by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law, and the decision taken

shall be conveyed under written intimation to him.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed the

statutory appeal on 11/12.02.2016, which is still awaiting a decision by the

Appellate Authority. In the meantime, the respondents are insisting that the

petitioner's family members that includes his wife and a one year old child,

vacate the government accommodation allotted to him. He states that the

family members of the petitioner may not be displaced from the government

accommodation at least during the pendency of the appeal and requests that

the petitioner's sentence be suspended pending a decision on the appeal.

5. We are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioner pending

the appeal, a position that was made clear while passing the order dated

01.02.2016 in the earlier writ petition filed by him. However, considering

the fact that the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner has been pending for

the past one and a half months, the respondents are directed to ensure that

the same is decided within two weeks from today under written intimation to

him. Till the decision on the said appeal is conveyed to the petitioner, the

respondents shall not take any coercive step to evict his family members

from the government accommodation occupied by them at 41 st Bn.

Ranidanga, West Bengal.

6. The petition is disposed of.

7. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision

taken by the Appellate Authority, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies, if

so advised, in accordance with law.

DASTI to the counsel for the respondents.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J APRIL 01, 2016 rkb/ap