Jharkhand High Court

Banke Bihari Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2021

                                      1                     [W.P.(S)   No.1430 of 2020]




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

W.P.(S) No. 1430 of 2020

----

Banke Bihari Singh, aged 59 years, son of Shri Ram Charitra Singh, resident of Flat no.F/2, Tapovan Appartment, Nivaranpur, Doranda, PO and PS-Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having office at Project Building, PO and PS -Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi

2.Special Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having office at Project Building, PO and PS -Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi

3.Deputy Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having office at Project Building, PO and PS -Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. J.F. Toppo, SC-VII

----

6/23.02.2021 Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.J.F.Toppo, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video

Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into

account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the

parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and

with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing

the notification dated 08.05.2020 contained in Annexure-3 whereby the

petitioner has been put under suspension.

4. The petitioner was appointed on 15.03.1991 in the cadre of

Bihar (now Jharkhand) Subordinate Education Service. He was promoted

to the cadre of Jharkhand Education Service in the year 2009. The

petitioner remained posted as District Superintendent of Education,

Bokaro during the period 05.01.2011 to 04.07.2012. The petitioner was

transferred and posted as District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad

on 22.11.2013 and he remained posted as such in Dhanbad till

04.07.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and posted as

District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and

he discharged his duty between 05.07.2016 to 17.09.2018. By

notification dated 18.09.2018 the petitioner was transferred from

Jamshedpur and posted as District Education Officer, Jamtara. While the

petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad

during the period 2013-16 some complaints were made against him with

respect to the certain irregularities relating to installation of hand-pumps

in one or the other schools in between the years 2013-14. These

complaints were thoroughly examined and no prima facie case was found

against the petitioner which is apparent from letter dated 21.11.2017

contained in Annexure-1. The same view was again expressed in the

report dated 27.05.2018 which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ

petition. The petitioner while posted as District Education Officer-cum-

Incharge District Superintendent of Education, he has been put under

suspension by notification dated 08.05.2020. On the same day, the

charge has been framed against the petitioner by resolution dated

08.05.2020. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ

petition.

5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner

has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the charges have

been framed against the petitioner for the alleged irregularities

committed when the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad which was six

years prior to his present posting. He submits that thereafter the

petitioner was transferred to one place to another place. He submits that

there is no doubt that suspension is not a punishment but it requires to

be passed after applying the mind. The earlier two reports are already on

the record whereby the irregularities were not found to be true. He

submits that the appointing authority without applying the mind and the

serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige has passed

the suspension order. He submits that he has obtained the information

under the Right to Information Act whereby he has been informed that

the enquiry report has already been submitted on 31.08.2020. He

submits that the affidavit has been filed in December, 2020 however, in

the counter affidavit that fact has not been disclosed with intention of

keeping the petitioner on suspension. He submits that when the enquiry

report is already there, the authority may proceed in accordance with law

but continuance of suspension is arbitrary. He relied in the case of

Ganauri Mistry v. State of Jharkhand and Others' 2013 (1) JLJR 282,

paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment are quoted

hereinbelow:

"14. Having considered the dictum of the Apex Court and judgments of Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court, the law of suspension is summarised as under :

When an appointing authority proceeds to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and order of suspension should not be passed in a routine or automatic manner. It is not necessary to place a Government employee under suspension in every case where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Appointing authority must be satisfied that continuance of the employee in the same post or at the same station may cause a reasonable apprehension

that it will influence or prejudice the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings. It should always be kept in mind by the appointing authority that though suspension is not a punishment, however, it visits the employee with serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige. Therefore, an order of suspension should not be passed lightly, casually or without proper application of mind.

15. Order of suspension need not contain the recital of the reasons which has resulted into the passing of the suspension order. If the suspension order is questioned before a Court of law, the appointing authority must show before the Court of law that before passing the suspension order the case of the delinquent employee was considered properly and suspension order was found to be desirable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering the gravity of the misconduct or continuance of the officer in the office may likely to influence the proceeding. If the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority fails to show that the grounds of suspension were considered before passing the suspension order, the suspension order so passed is liable to be quashed.

16. In the present case, since judgment has already been complied with and petitioner has taken every step to ensure the compliance of the judgment of this Court soon after receiving the representation, suspension order seems to be totally arbitrary, unjustified and result of non-application of mind. Therefore, order impugned does not sustain in the eyes of law."

6. Per contra, Mr. Toppo, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State submits that he has not been instructed

about the submission of the enquiry report and that is why such

statement is not there in the counter affidavit. He submits that in view of

paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner was put

under suspension.

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties

and going through the record, it transpires that earlier two letters dated

21.11.2017 and 27.05.2018 are already on record as Annexures 1 and 2

whereby the petitioner was not found to be guilty. The petitioner has

been transferred from one place to another place and after six years, the

said suspension order has been passed and that too when the