Bharat Ram Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

I.M. Quddusi, J.—Heard.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 12-4-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1562/2010 dismissing the said writ petition.

Brief facts of the case are that the writ appellant was allegedly caught red handed by the vigilance team while taking bribe. Consequently, an order for suspension was passed on 14-7-2008 suspending him from the post of Patwari by order of Collector (Land Records), Durg. In that order, it was mentioned that on 25-6-2008 the writ appellant caught red handed while taking bribe of Rs. l,500/- and this act is contrary to Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and as such he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. Thereafter on 3-2-2009, the suspension order was revoked.

On conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the writ appellant. Consequent to which, he was placed under suspension again by order dated 23rd March, 2010. A special case was registered as 02/2010 against the petitioner.

Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 deals with suspension. It provides that the Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension in the following circumstances:

(a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or

(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial:

Further, there are two provisos. According to the first proviso, a Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him.

Learned Counsel for the writ appellant raises the contention that once the suspension order was passed and revoked, the order of re-suspension could not have been passed and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the order of revocation cannot be reviewed.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the appeal and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned second order of suspension. He placed reliance on the decision of M.P. High Court (Gwalior Bench) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 202/1999, Chandra Pal Singh Pundhir Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education and Others, , which was filed against the order of learned Single Judge in the writ petition, in which the second order of suspension was under challenge. The learned Single Judge of M.P. High Court has observed that considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan, , the order passed by the Board, suspending the petitioner again appears to be proper and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the suspension passed by the Board. Similar contention was raised in LPA that the second suspension order amounts to review. Referring to first proviso to Clause (1) of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in the said case, i.e., Chandra Pal Singh Pundhir (supra), the Division Bench of M.P. High Court observed that the second suspension order was passed by the Chairman of the Board on pendency of Criminal Case No. 2690/1988 against he petitioner and in the second order of suspension, it was specifically mentioned that looking to the nature of criminal case, the second suspension order is passed. Therefore, the Division Bench opined that it is not a review of the first suspension order and further in case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Rajiv Rajan (supra), it has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court that there is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order for the second time.

We have perused the first suspension order which was not passed on the basis of any investigation or trial but was passed on the allegation that his act was contrary to Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and the said suspension on that ground was revoked. But the impugned order of suspension has been passed on submission of the charge-sheet against the writ appellant in the Criminal Court which is permissible in view of first proviso to Clause (1) of Rule 9 of CCA Rules that on submission of Challan for a criminal offence in the Court involving corruption or other moral turpitude the Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension and therefore, it cannot be termed as Review or a second order. In fact, under that provision the impugned order was the first order of suspension.

In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, misconceived and is dismissed at the admission stage.

However, this will not debar the petitioner from filing an appeal if the impugned order of suspension is appealable. No cost.