Dibya Lal vs State of Jharkhand

The petitioner is aggrieved of order of suspension dated 30.03.2016.Â

Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Adult Education Supervisor in the    year 1981, was appointed on the post of

Project Officer in the year 1998 and after the bifurcation of erstwhile State of Bihar she was absorbed on the post of Lady Supervisor in the  pay-

scale of Rs. 5000-8000. While in service by an order dated 30.03.2016 she was placed under suspension and directed to submit her reply why a

departmental proceeding be not initiated against her. Â

In the counter-affidavit the respondents have simply pleaded that the petitioner has been found guilty under Rule 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of Bihar

Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1976. This stand of the respondents has been seriously disputed by the petitioner.

4.  Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 does not disclose that an enquiry

was conducted in the alleged incident of misconduct by the  petitioner â€" this is not the stand taken by the respondents in theÂ

counter-affidavit â€" and a copy of enquiry report, if at all conducted against the petitioner, has not been furnished to her. Mere mention of Rule

3 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Conduct Rules in the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 would not establish that on an enquiry the petitioner has been found to

have committed misconduct.Â

After superannuation of an employee from service the order of suspension automatically stands revoked, however, the petitioner would be deprived

of full salary and allowances for the period during which she has remained under suspension.

It remains indisputed that before the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.09.2016 no charge-memo was served upon her; obviously no

departmental proceeding was initiated against her. Rule 9 of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016

 provides that an order of suspension must be founded on any of the conditions enumerated thereunder. The conditions under Rule 9 are :

“(1)(a) A disciplinary proceeding against the Government  Servant is contemplated or is pending; or

(b) In the opinion of the aforesaid authority, the Government Servant has engaged himself or herself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the

security of the State; or

(c) A case against the Government Servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial and the competent authority is

satisfied that it is expedient to suspend the Government Servant in public interest.â€​Â

7. By an order dated 01.05.2018 respondents were put to notice to the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph no. 12 of the writ petition. It is

not disputed by the respondents that no charge-memo was served upon the petitioner nor a departmental proceeding was initiated against her. The

impugned order dated 30.03.2016 in the aforesaid facts does not satisfy the requirements under Rule 9(1) of the Jharkhand Government Servants

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016. The suspension order dated 30.03.2016 has been issued contrary to Rule 9(1). In the aforesaid facts

of this case, the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 is quashed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be paid full salary and allowances for the period

between 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016. Â

8. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms. Â