Chattisgarh High Court
Narayan Prasad Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 January, 2023
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 810 of 2023
Narayan Prasad Rathore S/o Fekan Prasad Rathore, Aged About 36 Years
Occupation Assistant Teacher (LB), Government Primary School, Dipra Para,
Jarve, Block Division Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department of Education, Mahanadi
Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director Public Instructions, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Collector, Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh
4. District Education Officer, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh
5. Block Division Education Officer, Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Hamida Siddiqu, Dy. AG.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
27/01/2023
1. Limited grievance raised in writ petition is that after expiry of 90 days from the date of issuance of order of suspension, petitioner submitted representation/request letter for revocation of his suspension, but same has not been considered and decided nor any order has been passed till date.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) at Government Primary School, Diprapara, Jarve, Block Division Kartala, District -Korba was suspended under Rule 9 of C.G. Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1966 on account of his involvement in criminal case. After lapse of more than 90 days and his release on bail, petitioner submitted representation on 14.02.2022 and thereafter on 12.05.2022 before respondent No.4 for joining the service and for grant of subsistence allowance but till date same has not been considered and decided. In case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India through its Secretary & Anr reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered this issue and held that Government employees cannot be kept under suspension beyond 90 days without passing any order in this regard.
2
3. Learned State Counsel opposes submission of counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was involved in criminal case, he was arrested and remained in jail for considerable period of time, therefore, order of suspension was passed. If representation submitted by petitioner is not yet decided, it will be considered and decided at the earliest.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
5. Grievance of petitioner is that respondent No.4 has not reviewed the order of suspension after lapse of more than 90 days. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), has considered the issue of keeping a government employee under suspension beyond period of 90 days, and held as under :-
"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 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/Charge-sheet 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.3
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."
6. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), without entering into merit of case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to consider and decide the pending representation of petitioner dated 14.02.2022 and 12.05.2022 (Annexure P-2 & P-
3), expeditiously, preferably within an outer limit of 'four weeks' from the date of receipt of copy of this order keeping in mind the decision in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
CC as per rules. Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
J/-