Chattisgarh High Court
Vinod Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 October, 2022
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6327 of 2022
• Vinod Singh Thakur S/o Shri G.S. Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Kotra Road,
Vikas Nagar, P.S. Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Sr. Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. The Commandant V I P Security Battalion Mana, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
4. Station House Officer Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Pl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 10.10.2022
1. At the outset, Shri Prabhat Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has limited grievance in this writ petition that even after lapse of 90 days from the date of suspension order, petitioner is kept under suspension without there being any order of extension of suspension of petitioner. He further submits that petitioner, who is posted as Platoon Commander under VIP Security Batallion, Mana, Raipur and working under respondent-3, was placed under suspension on 07.03.2022, alleging some irregularities committed by him in discharge of his official duties. Subsequently, charge-sheet was issued on 01.06.2022 and departmental proceeding is still continuing. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, has considered issue of keeping an employee under suspension even after lapse of 90 days from the date of issuance of order of suspension and observed that employee cannot be kept under suspension for inordinate period. Similar grievance has been raised by one of the employees of State Government in WPS-
Wps 6327 of 2022 2 1406 of 2019 and taking note of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Choudhary (supra), representation was disposed of directing competent authority therein to consider and decide claim of petitioner within specified time frame. He submits that grievance of petitioner would be redressed at this stage, if similar direction is issued to respondent-3 to consider claim of petitioner with respect to revocation of his suspension within specified time frame.
2. Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that he is having no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, as he is not challenging other reliefs made in writ petition at this stage.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), while considering the issue of suspension, observed as under:
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
Wps 6327 of 2022 3
5. In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, as also considering documents placed on record wherein petitioner was suspended on 07.03.2022 and charge-sheet was issued on 01.06.2022, departmental enquiry is still going on and it is not concluded till now, and further submission of counsel for petitioner that no order has been passed by respondent-3 extending period of suspension, I find it appropriate to dispose of this petition directing respondent-3 to consider claim of petitioner with respect to his claim for revocation of his suspension within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, keeping in mind the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
6. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE padma