Tapas Ranjan Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10908 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P. (C) No. 36743 of 2020

            Tapas Ranjan Jena                  ....                               Petitioner
                                                    M/s S.K. Dash and associates, Adv.
                                                -Versus -
            State of Odisha and others         ....                      Opposite Parties

                                                                   Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA

                    CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                      ORDER

25.10.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

3. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon paragraph-13 of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 2389, contended that in view of the provisions contained under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973, 90 days period is granted to file charge sheet taking into consideration the said provision. Applying the same to the order of suspension, the memorandum of charge should have been framed within 90 days of the suspension period. It is contended that in the present case, the order of suspension has been passed on 04.12.2020 under Annexure-5, but the

proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on 16.07.2021, i.e., after more than seven months of passing of the order of suspension, which is clearly against the mandate of the judgment of the apex Court.

4. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Government Advocate, referring to the counter affidavit, contended that the memorandum of charge has been submitted on 23.04.2021 which has been placed on record as Annexure-D/1 to the writ petition. Thereby, the contention raised that the proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on 16.07.2021 is not correct.

5. In any case, fact remains that the order of suspension continues beyond the 90 days period. Whether the State can allow the order of suspension to continue for an indefinite period in the name of drawal of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner or not, and more so if the proceeding started beyond 90 days period, can it be construed that it has been done in accordance with law. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Government Advocate seeks time to obtain instructions on that score by the next date.

6. List after one week. Instructions be obtained in the meantime.

Ashok                                                (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
                                                          Judge