Banke Bihari Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.F.Toppo, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the notification dated 08.05.2020 contained in Annexure-3 whereby the petitioner has

been put under suspension.

The petitioner was appointed on 15.03.1991 in the cadre of Bihar (now Jharkhand) Subordinate Education Service. He was promoted to the cadre

of Jharkhand Education Service in the year 2009. The petitioner remained posted as District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro during the period

05.01.2011 to 04.07.2012. The petitioner was transferred and posted as District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad on 22.11.2013 and he remained

posted as such in Dhanbad till 04.07.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred and posted as District Superintendent of Education, West

Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and he discharged his duty between 05.07.2016 to 17.09.2018. By notification dated 18.09.2018 the petitioner was transferred

from Jamshedpur and posted as District Education Officer, Jamtara. While the petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Education,

Dhanbad during the period 2013-16 some complaints were made against him with respect to the certain irregularities relating to installation of hand-

pumps in one or the other schools in between the years 2013-14. These complaints were thoroughly examined and no prima facie case was found

against the petitioner which is apparent from letter dated 21.11.2017 contained in Annexure-1. The same view was again expressed in the report

dated 27.05.2018 which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner while posted as District Education Officer-cum- Incharge

District Superintendent of Education, he has been put under suspension by notification dated 08.05.2020. On the same day, the charge has been

framed against the petitioner by resolution dated 08.05.2020. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the charges have been framed against

the petitioner for the alleged irregularities committed when the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad which was six years prior to his present posting. He

submits that thereafter the petitioner was transferred to one place to another place. He submits that there is no doubt that suspension is not a

punishment but it requires to be passed after applying the mind. The earlier two reports are already on the record whereby the irregularities were not

found to be true. He submits that the appointing authority without applying the mind and the serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and

prestige has passed the suspension order. He submits that he has obtained the information under the Right to Information Act whereby he has been

informed that the enquiry report has already been submitted on 31.08.2020. He submits that the affidavit has been filed in December, 2020 however,

in the counter affidavit that fact has not been disclosed with intention of keeping the petitioner on suspension. He submits that when the enquiry report

is already there, the authority may proceed in accordance with law but continuance of suspension is arbitrary. He relied in the case of Ganauri Mistry

v. State of Jharkhand and Others' 2013 (1) JLJR 282, paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

Having considered the dictum of the Apex Court and judgments of Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court, the law of suspension is

summarised as under :

When an appointing authority proceeds to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of

misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration

the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and order of suspension should not be passed in a routine or automatic manner.

It is not necessary to place a Government employee under suspension in every case where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Appointing

authority must be satisfied that continuance of the employee in the same post or at the same station may cause a reasonable apprehension that it will

influence or prejudice the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings. It should always be kept in mind by the appointing authority that though suspension

is not a punishment, however, it visits the employee with serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige. Therefore, an order of

suspension should not be passed lightly, casually or without proper application of mind.

Order of suspension need not contain the recital of the reasons which has resulted into the passing of the suspension order. If the suspension order

is questioned before a Court of law, the appointing authority must show before the Court of law that before passing the suspension order the case of

the delinquent employee was considered properly and suspension order was found to be desirable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

considering the gravity of the misconduct or continuance of the officer in the office may likely to influence the proceeding. If the appointing authority

or the disciplinary authority fails to show that the grounds of suspension were considered before passing the suspension order, the suspension order so

passed is liable to be quashed.

In the present case, since judgment has already been complied with and petitioner has taken every step to ensure the compliance of the judgment

of this Court soon after receiving the representation, suspension order seems to be totally arbitrary, unjustified and result of non-application of mind.

Therefore, order impugned does not sustain in the eyes of law.

Per contra, Mr. Toppo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that he has not been instructed about the

submission of the enquiry report and that is why such statement is not there in the counter affidavit. He submits that in view of paragraph nos.8, 9 and

10 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner was put under suspension.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and going through the record, it transpires that earlier two letters dated 21.11.2017 and

27.05.2018 are already on record as Annexures 1 and 2 whereby the petitioner was not found to be guilty. The petitioner has been transferred from

one place to another place and after six years, the said suspension order has been passed and that too when the departmental proceeding has already

been initiated and the charges have been framed. In the departmental proceeding as submitted at Bar by Mr. Tandon, the learned counsel that the

enquiry report has already been submitted on 31.08.2020. The disclosure of submission of enquiry report is not in the counter affidavit which has been

filed in December, 2020. It has been submitted at Bar that the petitioner is going to retire in April, 2021 and if the suspension order will continue, the

petitioner will be put to irreparable loss in view of the fact that the enquiry report has already been submitted and to continue the suspension order will

put the petitioner for irreparable loss and continuing the suspension after submission of the enquiry report is not required and the competent authority is

well within his domain to pass further order pursuant to completion of the enquiry proceeding.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.05.2020 is quashed. In view of the submission of the enquiry report, the competent authority may take a

decision in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.