Patna High Court
Satyendra Prasad Sinha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 May, 2017
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18517 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Satyendra Prasad Sinha, Son of Late Ramishwar Singh, Resident of village - Arai
Benipur, P.O. Peer Barahana, P.S. Daniyawan, District - Patna, Presently Executive
Engineer ( Under Suspension ), Rural Works Department, Bihar
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta-GP10
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-05-2017
Heard Mr. Binod Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Anwar Karim learned A.C. to G.P.10 for the State.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of
suspension bearing Memo No.600 dated 18.2.2014 whereby on
institution of the Vigilance Case No.036 of 2013 under Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
that the petitioner has been put under suspension under Rule 9(1)(c) of
the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟).
Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in
reference to a judgment and order of this Court passed in
C.W.J.C.No.5477 of 2016 (Ishwar Dayal Vs. the State of Bihar)
Patna High Court CWJC No.18517 of 2016 dt.24-05-2017
2/5
has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is
covered by the opinion expressed by this Court. He submits that in the
present case, the investigation is still continuing awaiting submission
of chargesheet. He submits that in term of the Circular of the
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 3.7.1986,
in such of the cases of Government Servant placing suspension on
account of criminal prosecution, it is provided that in case cognizance
has not been taken of the offences of the criminal office faced by the
Government servant, then the suspension order be revoked. The
submission of Mr. Binod Kumar is that even in the present case, the
police case was registered on 11.7.2013 and the petitioner was put on
suspension on 18.2.2014 in exercise of powers vested under rule
9(1)(c) of „the Rules‟ and although the departmental proceeding has
also been alongside initiated against the petitioner but since the
suspension order is resting only on the institution of the criminal case
hence the case of the petitioner would be covered by the circular dated
3.7.1986as explained in the judgment passed by this court in the case of Ishwar Dayal (supra).
Mr. Kumar learned counsel for the State while referring to the seriousness of the charge does admit that the investigation is continuing and cognizance has not yet been taken in the criminal case.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering Patna High Court CWJC No.18517 of 2016 dt.24-05-2017 3/5 the admitted circumstances where the suspension order is resting exclusively on the investigation of the criminal case, in view of the stipulation present in the Circular of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 3.7.1986, it needs to be revoked.
The opinion of this Court as expressed in the case of Ishwari Prasad squarely covers the case of the petitioner and the relevant part of which runs as follows:
"I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.
True it is that the suspension order impugned at Annexure-3 is on the institution of the criminal case and is neither in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding or in a pending proceeding. The submission of learned counsel for the parties including Mr. Prasad also does confirm that a period of more than two years having lapsed, the investigation is still incomplete. Since the investigation itself is yet to be completed, there is no question of a cognizance order. The Circular of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 3.7.1986 is enclosed at Annexure-11 to the supplementary affidavit and is in connection with revocation of suspension of officers and employees who are facing criminal and disciplinary proceedings. In so far as the present case is concerned paragraph 3 and 4([k) and (x) would be relevant for the purpose and which is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"3..................................................... foHkkx ds lfpo d`i;k lqfuf"pr djsa fd ,sls lHkh ekeys tgkWa ljdkjh lsod ds fo:) QkStnkjh eqdnek ds vfrfjDr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh Hkh pyk;h tk jgh gS vkSj ljdkjh lsod ds fuyEcu dh vof/k nks o'kksZa ls vf/kd gks x;h gS dh leh{kk izR;sd 3 ekg esa dh tk;s vkSj vxj QkStnkjh eqdnek esa foyEc gksus dh laHkkouk gks vkSj ljdkjh lsod ds fuyEcu dh vof/k nks o'kksZa ls vf/kd gks x;h gks rks foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa fcuk fdlh izfrdwy izHkko ds jktif=r inkf/kdkjh dks fuyEcu ls eqDr djus ls lEc) ekeys ds xq.k&nks'k dk tkWp dj eq[; lfpo ds Patna High Court CWJC No.18517 of 2016 dt.24-05-2017 4/5 ek/;e ls] eq[;ea=h dk vkns"k izkIr djsa A
4. vkids lqyHk funsZ"k ds fy, dkfeZd foHkkx ds mi;qZDr ifji= la- 8537] fnukad 3&7&1981 dh dafMdk &2 dk m)j.k fn;k tk jgk gS &
(d).................................................
([k) ,sls fuyfEcr jktif=r inkf/kdkfj;ksa@ deZpkfj;ksa dks ftudh fuyEcu dh vof/k nks o'kZ ls vf/kd gks x;h gS rFkk ftuds fo:) fdlh QkStnkjh eqdnek esa l{ke U;k;y; nokjk laKku ugha fy;k x;k gS mUgsa fuyEcu ls eqDr dj fn;k tk;s A
(x) ,sls ekeyks esa Hkh tgkW ljdkjh lsod ds fo:) QkStnkjh eqdnek ds vfrfjDr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh Hkh pyk;h tk jgh gS vkSj ljdkjh lsod ds fuyEcu dh vof/k nks o'kZ ls vf/kd dh gks x;h gSs rks ;g vko";d gS dh foHkkx ds lfpo nokjk ekeys dh leh{kk izR;sd rhu ekg esa dh tk;s A muls ;g Hkh vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os ljdkjh odhy ds ek/;e ls QkStnkjh eqdnek ds Rofjr fu'iknu ds fy, vko";d dkjokbZ djsa A vxj muds fopkj esa QkStnkjh eqdnek esa cgqr vf/kd foyaEc gksus dh laHkkouk gS vkSj ljdkjh lsod ds fuyEcu dh vof/k nks o'kZ ls vf/kd gks x;k gS rks foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ij fdlh izfrdwy izHkko ds jktif=r inkf/kdkjh ds fuyEcu ls eqDr djus ds lEcU/k esa ekeys ds xq.k&nks'k dh tkWp dj eq[; lfpo ds ek/;e ls vkns"k izkIr djsa A"
The Circular thus in so far as such order of suspension which are resting entirely on institution of a criminal case is concerned, advises the Secretary of the Department to revoke the suspension where no cognizance order has been passed by the competent court for a period exceeding two years. The matter is much worse in the present case for here, even the investigation is incomplete. The charge against the petitioner is of possessing disproportionate asset to the known sources of his income and which charge is yet to be driven home in the criminal case. Although the respondents have decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner alongside the criminal case but then the suspension order as it was passed in the year 2014 did not contemplate any such proceeding nor has been modified by any subsequent order to cover the eventuality.
In the circumstances so discussed where the order of suspension is resting solely on the institution of the criminal case which is yet continuing in investigation, I would be Patna High Court CWJC No.18517 of 2016 dt.24-05-2017 5/5 persuaded by the arguments of Mr. Narain in the backdrop of the advisory issued by the Personnel and Administrative Department for more particularly paragraph 4([k) and (x) to hold that the suspension order is fit to be revoked and accordingly the order of suspension bearing Memo No. 625 dated 28.4.2014 passed by the Director, Planning and Development Department, Directorate of Economics and Statics impugned at Annexure-3 is quashed and set aside. The order of suspension of petitioner is revoked."
For the reasons so discussed, the order bearing Memo No.600 dated 18.2.2014 passed by the State Government in the Rural Works Department impugned at Annexure-1 is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26.05.2017 Transmission Date NA