Jharkhand High Court
Lakhiram Baskey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(S) No.548 of 2023
----
Lakhiram Baskey .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasha
Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department,
Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, at Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, P.O.
Kutchery, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda .... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Zaid Imam, A.C to S.C.VII
----
rd
06/Dated: 23 August, 2023
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing
the notification contained in Memo No.255 (HRMS) dated 12.01.2023,
whereby, the petitioner has been suspended under Rule 9(1) (क) and (ग) of
the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal)
Rules, 2016. It has been challenged on the ground that it is non speaking
order, while the law requires that it should be speaking order.
3. From the pleadings and arguments on behalf of the parties, it appears
that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Deputy Collector in the
year 2006 by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the petitioner
was posted as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Swarnrekha Multipurpose
Project (SMP), Chandil/Mango, Jamshedpur on 14.09.2015 and he has been
given additional charge of Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3,
Adityapur, Jamshedpur with effect from 09.02.2016. The petitioner was
taken into custody on 18.07.2022 in connection with Sundernagar P.S. Case
No.22 of 2017.
It further appears that on account of custody, he has been suspended
vide order dated 18.10.2022 till further orders. After submission of the
charge-sheet, he has been released on bail vide order dated 29.11.2022
passed in B.A No.9357 of 2022.
On being released, he joined his services on 12.12.2022 and after
acceptance of his joining, the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 has been
passed, which reads as under:-
अिधसूचना
^^la[;k&5@vkjksi&1&36@2022&255 ¼HRMS½@ Jh y[kh jke ckLds] >k0iz0ls0 ¼dksfV
Øekad&61@20½] rRdkyhu Hkwfe lq/kkj mi lekgÙkkZ] xksM~Mk dks lqUnjuxj dk.M la[;k&22@2017]
th0vkj0 ua0&1867@17] /kkjk&467@468@471@406@409@419@420@34 Hkk0na0fo0 esa vuqeM
a y
U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh ¼S.D.J.M.½] te'ksniqj ds U;k;ky; esa vkReleiZ.k djus ds i'pkr~ mUgsa
U;kf;d fgjklr esa ?kk?khMhg dsUnzh; dkjkxkj Hksts tkus ds dkj.k foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la0&17719
¼HRMS½] fnukad 18-10-2022 }kjk >kj[k.M ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½
fu;ekoyh] 2016 ds fu;e&9¼2½¼d½ ds rgr~ vkReleiZ.k dh frfFk fnukad 18-07-2022 ds izHkko ls
vxys vkns'k rd fuyafcr fd;k x;kA
2- Jh ckLds }kjk U;kf;d fgjklr ls eqDr gksus ds ckn fnukad 12-12-2022 dks foHkkx esa ;ksxnku
lefiZr fd;k x;k gSA
3- vr% >kj[k.M ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2016 ds fu;e&9¼3½¼i½ ds
rgr~ Jh ckLds }kjk ;ksxnku fn;s tkus dh frfFk fnukad&12-12-2022 ds izHkko ls budk ;ksxnku
Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&9¼1½¼d½ ,oa ¼x½ ds rgr~ ;ksxnku dh frfFk
12-12-2022 ds izHkko ls vxys vkns'k rd bUgsa iqu% fuyafcr fd;k tkrk gSA
4- fuyacu vof/k esa Jh ckLds dk eq[;ky; izeaMyh; vk;qDr dk dk;kZy;] nf{k.kh NksVkukxiqj izeaMy]
jk¡ph fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS] tgk¡ ;s viuh mifLFkfr ntZ djsaxs rFkk mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij gh bUgsa
>kj[k.M ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2016 ds fu;e&10 ds rgr~
thou fuokZg HkÙkk ns; gksxkA**
4. The argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 is contrary to the
mandate of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary vrs. Union of India through its Secretary and Another reported
in (2015) 7 SCC 291.
5. It has further been submitted that neither contemplation of the
departmental proceeding was there, nor any reason has been assigned.
The reference to the rule 3 (ii) of the Jharkhand Government Servant
(Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 has been made which reads
as under:-
य द उप िनयम (1) (क) या (ख) या (ग) के अधीन सरकारी सेवक को पुनः िनलाि बत करने
का िनणय कया जाता है तो ऐसी करवाई उसके योगदान वीकार करने के प चात तथा अलग
से आदेश िनगत करके ही क जायेगी **
6. It further appears that vide letter No.3166 dated 02.06.2023, a show
cause has been issued to the petitioner with a stipulation that why
departmental proceeding should not be initiated against him.
7. Referring to the above judgment and the show cause notice, it has
been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present
case neither any reason has been assigned, nor departmental proceeding has
been contemplated, while issuing the order of suspension dated 12.01.2023.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the
prayer and has submitted that pendency of criminal case is enough reason for
putting the petitioner under suspension and no contemplation under the law
is required.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of
the records, it appears that the earlier the petitioner stood suspended on
going to jail as per the mandate of the law. The Rule 9 (3) (ii) contemplates
that on getting bail, the Government is at liberty to pass a fresh order after
acceptance of joining. This rule has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above judgment that the fresh order has to be passed with
reason. The reasoned order is sine qua non and unreasoned order is not
acceptable.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the impugned
order dated 12.01.2023 is unreasoned one and this Court has no other option
but to quash the same. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 is
hereby quashed with effect from today.
11. The respondent-authority is directed to accept the joining of the
petitioner within a period of one week from today. The respondent
authorities are at liberty to take fresh decision in accordance with law.
12. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is hereby,
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Raja/-
