Angad Mehra vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Tapen Sen, J.—Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension. Learned counsel agreed that instead of asking the respondents to file a detailed counter-affidavit at this stage, it would be more appropriate and desirable if the Deputy Commissioner, Godda is directed to dispose off the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation if he so desires. Taking note of the aforementioned submissions. I dispose off this writ petition by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to consider the grievances of the writ petitioner by looking into the representation filed by the petitioner and dispose off the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While doing so, the petitioner shall be given liberty to file additional representation/detailed representation, if he so desires.

The writ petition stands disposed off.

It is submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have exhibited unwarranted lethargy in as much as he was put under suspension 9 (nine) months ago and that, till date, they have not cared to move ahead. In that view of the matter this Court makes it mandatory upon the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to do the needful in accordance with law within the period indicated above failing which, the petitioner will have the liberty to pray for revocation of the order of suspension.