Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 July, 2022
CWP-11824-2022 -1-
238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11824-2022
Date of decision: 19.07.2022
PARAMJIT SINGH
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. R. K. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the
order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure P-5) whereby, the petitioner herein has been
placed under suspension as well as the order dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure
P-17) whereby, respondent No.1 has decided not to revoke the suspension of
the petitioner despite a period of more than one year and four months having
elapsed from the date of suspension, without issuing any charge-sheet to the
petitioner herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that an
FIR No.129, dated 07.08.2018, was registered pertaining to the incident arising
out of a sacrilege incident of the Holy Book in Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
During enquiry, there was a statement recorded that the petitioner herein had
1 of 4
issued directions for use of teargas. The petitioner stood suspended on
31.12.2020 and as on date, no charge-sheet has been presented against him
either in the FIR or in the departmental proceedings. It is further contended that
the petitioner was allowed anticipatory bail by the Court below by taking note
of the fact that the only allegation against him was of use of teargas. He would
further contend that due process and procedure was followed before the use of
teargas as would be evident from the fact that the SDM gave permission to do
so considering the activities of the mob that had gathered. He would argue that
the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension indefinitely and while rejecting
his representation for taking him back in service, this fact has not been taken
into account.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that paying
the petitioner suspension allowance @ 75% of his salary and not taking work
from him would amount to a burden on the Public Exchequer. In this regard, he
places reliance upon an order passed by a coordinate Bench in CWP No.2847
of 2021 on 05.03.2021 (Annexure P-13). It is also submitted that on the basis
of parity too, he would be entitled to be taken back in service as similarly
situated person, namely, Baljit Singh was taken back in service and has
ultimately retired while in service. One Charanjit Singh too has been taken
back in service. It is submitted that while rejecting his representation, there is
an opinion formed that the petitioner was likely to affect proceedings in the
FIR and the departmental enquiry, which is a wrong premise since he has not
been nominated in the FIR and there is no departmental enquiry against him as
of today. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Ajay Kumar
Choudhary versus Union of India through its Secretary and Another,
2 of 4
2015(3) SCT 107 to contend that suspension cannot be for an indeterminate
period and that a suspension order cannot exceed three months if within this
period the memorandum of charges is not served upon the delinquent
officer/employee.
Pursuant to notice of motion having been issued on 27.05.2022,
learned State counsel sought time to file reply. The matter was then adjourned
to 04.07.2022, on which date reply was filed, wherein it was mentioned that as
on that date, no charge-sheet had been served upon the petitioner herein.
This Court while taking note of the fact that the petitioner herein
had been put under suspension as far back as on 31.12.2020, has also taken
note of the judgment as rendered by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar
Choudhary's case (supra) wherein it is stated that a person could not be kept
under suspension indefinitely, beyond a period of three months if there is no
charge-sheet served upon the delinquent employee, as in the instant case. On
11.07.2022, this Court sought a response from the respondents-State as to
whether the State would consider posting the petitioner herein to another post,
where he would not be in a position to influence the investigation. Today,
learned State counsel, on instructions from Mr. Harmeet Singh, Senior
Assistant and Ms. Ravneet Kaur, Superintendent (Home-1 Branch), would
submit that the matter is still under active consideration, however, the
petitioner herein can be posted as Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police
Control Room, Chandigarh, a post which is vacant at the present moment.
The law is well settled that a person cannot be kept under
suspension beyond a period of three months in case no charge-sheet is served
upon such employee. This Court has no hesitation in setting aside the order of
3 of 4
suspension dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure P-5) keeping in view that no charge-
sheet has been admittedly served upon the petitioner herein as on date. To
address the apprehension of the respondents-State that the petitioner herein
may influence the investigation, it is directed that the petitioner herein be
posted as Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police Control Room, Chandigarh,
for the time being.
Let the necessary orders ensue preferably within a period of one
week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, in accordance
with law.
It is made clear that the petitioner herein would not exercise any
influence over the investigation that is undergoing under the said FIR
registered against him.
The instant writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
19.07.2022 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
