Chattisgarh High Court
Fulzance Tigga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 January, 2023
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 479 of 2023
Fulzance Tigga S/o Late Shri Lukas Tigga Aged About 53 Years
Working As Lecturer (Lb), Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kundikala,
Block Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan,
Block-3, First Floor Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The District Education Officer, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For State : Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 19/01/2023 Heard.
1. Grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that after issuance of order of suspension on 01.08.2022 against the petitioner, respondent No.2 has not reviewed or revoked the order of suspension even after lapse of more than 90 days.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner while working on the post of Lecturer (LB) was put -2- under suspension under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (for short "Rules of 1966") on the ground that one criminal case was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested. Petitioner was released on bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Till date, no charge memo has been served upon the petitioner by the competent authority. As of now, more than 5 months have already completed but respondent No.2 has not reviewed the order of suspension of petitioner nor revoked the same. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary & Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 291 has held that Govt. employee cannot be kept under suspension for long time without taking necessary steps after completion of period of 90 days.
3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not reviewed the order of of suspension. However, the petitioner has not approached respondent No.2 with the application seeking review of order of suspension. If petitioner submits application/representation, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with record.
5. Order of suspension of the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966 is passed on 01.08.2022 on the ground that one criminal case is registered against him and he was arrested. till date, -3- charge memo has not been served upon the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has considered the issue with regard to keeping a Govt. employee under suspension after completion of 90 days and has held thus:
"20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1986 (4) SCC 481, and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to moderate Suspension Orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary inquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from -4- incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of Charges/ Chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the 4 proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal.
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 person concerned 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 -5- 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."
6. Consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstance of the case, ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), particularly submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that even after completion of more than 5 months, respondent No. 2 has not taken any steps for reviewing or revocation of order of suspension of the petitioner, at this stage, this writ petition is disposed off, directing the petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondent No.2 and if such representation is submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the same -6- expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date fo receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra)
7. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/--/-/--------/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen