Jharkhand High Court
Satya Prakash vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2021
-1- W.P. (S) No. 2194 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2194 of 2020
Satya Prakash, aged about 48 years, Son of Late Abhay Kumar,
Residing at C/o Jai Prakash, Kali Shankar Street, Hindpiri, Near
Marwari College, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Hindpiri, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. Joint Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O.
& P.S. Hazaribagh, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
6. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla, Jharkhand
... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, S.C.-V
-----
04/10.03.2021. Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, 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 on merit.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the
notification dated 01.07.2020, whereby, the petitioner has been put under
suspension under Rule 9 of the Jharkhand Government Servants
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016.
-2- W.P. (S) No. 2194 of 2020
4. The petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Chainpur, Gumla on
31.07.2017. A notification dated 01.07.2020 issued by the Joint Secretary,
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government
of Jharkhand was served to the petitioner, whereby, the petitioner has been
put under suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules, 2016 alleging therein that
on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla vide his letter
dated 06.06.2020 on the ground of non-residing at the Circle Headquarter,
Chainpur and on a charge of unauthorisedly checking and collecting fine
from vehicles outside his jurisdictional area, a recommendation has been
made to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Aggrieved
with this, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition.
5. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
without following the principles of natural justice, the suspension order has
been passed. He further submits that due to that the petitioner has been
put irreparable loss as his prestige is downgraded in the society. He also
submits that more than 8 months' period has lapsed and in spite of that the
petitioner is still under suspension and no revocation order has been
passed. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is covered in light
of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary &
Others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.
6. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 14 of the said judgment are quoted herein
below:
"8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, however,
has rightly relied on a series of judgments of this Court,
including O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, where this Court has
enunciated that the suspension of an employee is injurious to
his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably
-3- W.P. (S) No. 2194 of 2020
long period; that, therefore, an order of suspension should not
be lightly passed.
9. Our attention has also been drawn to K. Sukhendar
Reddy v. State of A.P., which is topical in that it castigates
selective suspension perpetuated indefinitely in circumstances
where other involved persons had not been subjected to any
scrutiny. Reliance on this decision is in the backdrop of the
admitted facts that all the persons who have been privy to the
making of the office notes have not been proceeded against
departmentally.
xxx xxx xxx
14. More recently, the European Convention on Human
Rights in Article 6(1) promises that:
"6. (1) in the determination of his civil rights and
obligations or of any criminal charge against him,
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time...."
and in its second sub-article that:"
6. (2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall
be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to
law."
7. Per contra, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned counsel for the respondent-
State submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and that
is why the petitioner has been put under suspension. She further submits
that now the departmental proceeding has already been initiated and that
will be completed within a time frame and the petitioner may cooperate in
the department proceeding.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the
Court finds that admittedly the petitioner was suspended vide notification
dated 01.07.2020. It is also an admitted fact that the enquiry has not been
completed as yet. In view of the resolution of the Personnel and
Administrative Department dated 26.12.2012, the enquiry needs to be
completed within 105 days. Rule 9(6)(C) has not been exercised by the
authority for extending the suspension order with regard to the petitioner.
A reference in this regard may be made in case of State of T.N. v.
Promod Kumar reported in (2018) 17 SCC 677. Paragraph nos.24, 25,
-4- W.P. (S) No. 2194 of 2020
26 and 27 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:
"24. The first respondent was placed under deemed
suspension under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services Rules for
being in custody for a period of more than 48 hours. Periodic
reviews were conducted for his continuance under
suspension. The recommendations of the Review Committees
did not favour his reinstatement due to which he is still under
suspension. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the first respondent fairly submitted that we can
proceed on the basis that the criminal trial is pending. There
cannot be any dispute regarding the power or jurisdiction of
the State Government for continuing the first respondent
under suspension pending criminal trial. There is no doubt
that the allegations made against the first respondent are
serious in nature. However, the point is whether the continued
suspension of the first respondent for a prolonged period is
justified.
25. The first respondent has been under suspension for
more than six years. While releasing the first respondent on
bail, liberty was given to the investigating agency to approach
the Court in case he indulged in tampering with the evidence.
Admittedly, no complaint is made by CBI in that regard. Even
now the appellant has no case that there is any specific
instance of any attempt by the first respondent to tamper with
evidence.
26. In the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held
on 27- 6-2016, it was mentioned that the first respondent is
capable of exerting pressure and influencing witnesses and
there is every likelihood of the first respondent misusing office
if he is reinstated as Inspector General of Police. Only on the
basis of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting, the
Principal Secretary, Home (SC) Department ordered extension
of the period of suspension for a further period of 180 days
beyond 9-7-2016 vide order dated 6-7-2016.
27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India
has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and
held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration.
On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that
no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first
respondent under suspension any longer and that his
reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We
reiterate the observation of the High Court that the appellant
State has the liberty to appoint the first respondent in a non-
sensitive post."
9. In view of the well settled provision of law, it is well settled that the
suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. In this case, Rule 9(6)
(C) has not been invoked for extending the period of suspension or
revocation. However, eight weeks' further time is allowed to the respondent-
-5- W.P. (S) No. 2194 of 2020
State to conclude the departmental proceeding. If the departmental
proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the order of
suspension shall automatically be revoked.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
