Gujarat High Court
Amrishbhai Natubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 23 June, 2017
Author: S.G. Shah
Bench: S.G. Shah
C/SCA/5372/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5372 of 2016
==========================================================
AMRISHBHAI NATUBHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ROBIN MOGERA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MEHULSHARAD SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
Date : 23/06/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. U. T. Mishra for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for respondent No.3 and learned AGP Mr. Robin Mogera for respondent No.1. Perused the record.
2. It is undisputed fact that petitioner has been suspended with effect from 24.09.2014 by an order dated 24.09.2014, copy of which is produced at Annexure A (page 15). It is also undisputed fact that pursuant to Government Resolution dated 05.10.2014, if charge sheet is not filed within 90 days, then such order of suspension would remain invalid and the employee is required to be taken on duty. Such Government Resolution also confirms that all the cases of suspension are to be revised at the period of 3 Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 20 05:20:17 IST 2017 C/SCA/5372/2016 ORDER months prescribing the particular months as March, June, September and December. Therefore, at the most if first 90 days is completed on 23.12.2014 and after scrutiny, if the suspension comes before 23.12.2014, then at least in March 2014 while scrutinizing the case of the suspension of the petitioner it is necessary for the respondent to revoke the suspension pursuant to such specific directions in Government Resolution dated 05.10.2014.
3. However, it is quite clear from the record that there is no clarity about any such revision in the month of March, June, September and December of 2015 and there is only one resolution dated 23.03.2016 at Annexure R2 with Affidavit in reply (page 72) which confirms that suspension of the petitioner was extended for further 6 months. Therefore, considering the decision of this Court, other High Courts and the Honourable Supreme Court, which are as under, it is necessary and obligatory for the respondents to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and depute him, if not on same post then on some other post but in any case suspension beyond 90 days without any reason cannot sustain.
(1)Dipendra Keshavlal Mehta vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 (2) GLH 428 (2)Union of India vs. Dipak Mali reported in 2010 (2) SCC 222 (3)Sri Abanindra Mohanty vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (8) SLR 535 by the Calacutta High Court (4)Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in 2013 (16) SCC 147
4. As against that, learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that pending this petition now charge sheet has been filed, inquiry Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 20 05:20:17 IST 2017 C/SCA/5372/2016 ORDER officer has been appointed and since order of suspension has been extended by the Resolution dated 23.03.2016, it cannot be said that petitioner is entitiled to any relief of revocation of suspension or to quash and set aside the departmental inquiry. However, in view of Government Resolution dated 05.10.2014 and citations referred herein above it becomes clear that the extension of suspension is not in accordance with Rules when it is only by the Resolution dated 23.03.2016. Moreover six months and that period has also been over now almost before a year. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission by the respondent to avoid interim relief in favour of the petitioner.
5. Considering the same facts and circumstances though at this stage there cannot be interim relief to stop the departmental inquiry, it is quite clear and obvious that suspension of the petitioner is required to be revoked by the respondent and when respondent has not done it, there is reason to allow the appropriate prayer as prayed for in para 16B. For the same set of facts and circumstances, since main matter is yet to be decided on its own merits, at this stage such matter requires admission. Hence following order;
Rule returnable on 11.09.2017. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. Learned AGP Mr. Robin Mogera waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent - State. Interim relief in terms of para 16(C). Thereby petitioner should be reinstated in the service with immediate effect. However, respondent may depute the petitioner on some post other than the post from which he was suspended. It would be appropriate for the petitioner to co-operate in the proceedings of departmental inquiry. Direct service is permitted.
Page 3 of 4HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 20 05:20:17 IST 2017 C/SCA/5372/2016 ORDER (S.G. SHAH, J.) drashti Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 20 05:20:17 IST 2017