Chattisgarh High Court
Md. Halim Mansuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 January, 2023
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 38 of 2023
Md. Halim Mansuri S/o Late Taj Mohammad Aged About 53 Years
Occupation - In-Charge Head Master (Teacher-Lb), Government
Primary Middle School Revtipur Block Ramchandrapur, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Joint Director Public Instructions Surguja Ambikapur, District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
4. The Collector District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
5. The District Education Officer District Balrampur-Ramanujganj,
Chhattisgarh.
6. The Block Education Officer Block Ramchandrapur, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
______________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 11/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while working on the post of Teacher (LB) has been served with an order dated 18.7.2022 (Annexure P-8) suspending him under Rule 9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, -2- Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 (for short "Rules of 1966"). Thereafter, charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner and departmental inquiry proceedings is pending consideration. He submits that from the date of issuance of order of suspension more than 90 days have already been elapsed, but till date, respondent No.4 has not reviewed the order of suspension nor has revoked the same. According to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary & Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 291, a Govt. servant cannot be kept under suspension for long time and after completion of 90 days appropriate, order is required to be passed if period of suspension is to be extended. Till date, no such order has been passed against the petitioner. Therefore, order of suspension of the petitioner is liable to be revoked.
2. Learned counsel for the State submits that on the allegation against the petitioner of committing irregularity in Mid-day Meal programme, he was put under suspension and subsequently charge sheet was also issued. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, departmental inquiry is still pending. Petitioner has not submitted any application before respondents for reviewing or revocation of order of suspension and if petitioner submits representation/application, it will be considered in accordance with law.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents annexed along with writ petition.
4. Annexure P-8 is an order issued by respondent -Collector -3- whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension under Rule 9 (1) of the Rules of 1966. The order is dated 18.7.2022. Period of 90 days came to an end in the month of October 2022. 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 beyond 90 days and observed 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 -4- to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from 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 -5- 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."
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision has observed that the Govt. servant cannot be kept under suspension for inordinate period and after completion of 90 days from the date of suspension of employee, if suspension period is to be further extended, reasoned order is required to be passed. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, no such order has been passed by respondent-Collector.
-6-
6. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the petitioner was kept under suspension on 18.07.2022 and as of now more than five months have already completed, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner no order reviewing the order of suspension is passed by the competent authority and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) ,at this stage, this writ petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to submit a representation before respondent No.4/Collector for reviewing/revocation of order of suspension dated 18.07.2022(Annexure P-8) and if such representation is submitted, respondent No.4 shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of representation keeping in mind the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-/-/-/-/-/--------/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen