Sailesh Kumar Keshari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 923 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21815 of 2018
     ======================================================

Sailesh Kumar Keshari Son of Sri Jagdish Prasad Keshari Resident of Village-Itarhi,P.S. Itarhi, Distt.-Buxar

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-02-2021

In this application, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the order

of his suspension at Annexure-3 on the ground that none of

the ground for suspension is made out. As such, the same

suffers from arbitrariness as well as is violative of the legal

right of the petitioner to continue in public service.

2. Petitioner was working as Block Development

Officer at Charpokhari Block in the district of Bhojpur. On

11.01.2017, the petitioner was trapped while accepting bribe Patna High Court CWJC No.21815 of 2018 dt.18-02-2021

of rupees twenty-five thousand by the Vigilance Authorities

and Patna Vigilance Case No.2 of 2017 was registered.

Petitioner was taken into custody.

3. Thereafter the petitioner was released on bail

in the aforesaid criminal case on 22.03.2017. Vide order

dated 20.02.2017, the petitioner was put under suspension for

the period when the petitioner was in jail. The said suspension

order was revoked on 09.05.2017 vide order at Annexure-C

from the date of joining of the petitioner on 23.03.2017.

4. By the impugned order dated 11.05.2017, the

petitioner was again put under suspension with effect from

23.03.2017 on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid

criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness as none of the

grounds mentioned in Rule-9 of the Bihar Government

Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005,

whereunder orders of suspension are passed. He further

submits that putting the petitioner under suspension with

retrospective effect is itself bad-in-law because no other

incriminating material was there in between the date of

joining of the petitioner dated 23.03.2017 and the date of Patna High Court CWJC No.21815 of 2018 dt.18-02-2021

impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the State-respondents

opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the reason that the

authorities have exercised their discretion according to law as

investigation of a serious criminal charge was already going

on against the petitioner. Rule 9(1) of the Bihar Government

Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005,

reads as follows:

"9. Order of Suspension.-(1) The

appointing authority or any authority to

which the appointing authority is

subordinate or the disciplinary authority or

any other authority empowered in that

behalf by the Government by general or

special order, may place a government

servant under suspension when-

(a) a disciplinary proceeding against the

Government Servant is contemplated or is

pending, or

(b) in the opinion of the authority

aforesaid, the government servant has

engaged himself or herself in activities Patna High Court CWJC No.21815 of 2018 dt.18-02-2021

prejudicial to the interest of the security of

the State, or

(c) a case against the government servant

in respect of any criminal offence is under

investigation, inquiry or trial and the

competent authority is satisfied that it is

expedient to suspend the Government

Servant in public interest."

7. Evidently, the impugned order or counter-

affidavit does not show that any departmental proceeding is

completed or pending against the petitioner. Likewise, the

impugned order does not reveal that there was material for

satisfaction that petitioner engaged himself in activity

prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State. There is

nothing in the impugned order to speak that suspension of the

petitioner was in the "public interest". Rule 9(1)(c) aforesaid

was considered by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No.8229

of 2014, a copy at Annexure-5, and the Court held that the

order of suspension must be speaking that it was passed in the

public interest.

8. In my view, none of the requirement to pass the

order of suspension under the aforesaid Rules is made out in Patna High Court CWJC No.21815 of 2018 dt.18-02-2021

the matter of petitioner. Hence, the impugned order suffers

from arbitrariness and is violative of the legal right of the

petitioner. Accordingly, the same is quashed and the

petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with all benefits which

have been withheld by the authorities.

9. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of the

Court that suspension of the petitioner has already been

recalled by the authorities on 17.11.2020. However, the

petitioner is not getting any post and salary.

10. It is at the discretion of the authorities

concerned to assign or not to assign any work to the

petitioner. However, petitioner would be entitled for salary

after reinstatement which have been withheld by the

petitioner. Petitioner would be entitled for dues of his salary,

if any, of the period to which the petitioner had worked prior

to suspension.

11. By order dated 11.02.2021 cost of Rs.1,000/-

(One thousand) was imposed against the respondent for non-

filing of the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit was filed

on the very next day. The reason for non-filing of counter

affidavit within time appears to be acceptable. Hence, the

respondents are exonerated from the cost imposed vide order Patna High Court CWJC No.21815 of 2018 dt.18-02-2021

dated 11.02.2021.

12. The writ application stands allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          19.02.2021
Transmission Date