Dr. Hitendra Kumar Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ

Appellant had filed a writ application before the learned Single Judge seeking a direction upon the Respondents to regularize his period of

suspension in terms of Fundamental Rule 54B.

The learned Single Judge heard the Petitioner, dismissed the writ application on a finding recorded that the Appellant had been put under suspension

on 17.04.2014 in exercise of power under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The said

Rule reads as under :

(1) 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 :-

 (a)   xxx    xxx   xxx

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

[Provided that 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] :

Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to

the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made.

Reading of the above quoted provision would show that when a case is instituted against a Government servant in respect of any criminal offence

under investigation, inquiry or trial, power is vested in the competent authority to pass order of suspension.

There is no dispute that there was an FIR instituted under Section 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC in which the Appellant also stood

charge- sheeted and is facing trial. However, the Respondent authorities decided to revoke the order of suspension on 14.01.2016 before the criminal

case attained finality on the ground that there are shortage of hands of Veterinary Doctors, therefore, services of the Appellant would be required to

be utilized in the interest of administration and State. The said order itself indicates that a decision with regard to the period of suspension will be taken

separately.

Before the learned Single Judge much was argued on the Fundamental Rule 54B and its applicability to the case of the present Appellant and what

would be the effect, as well as how it is to be interpreted.

After having given a detailed hearing to the counsel for the Appellant, having perused the impugned order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned

Single Judge as also the relevant Rules, all these submissions or arguments in our opinion was unwarranted and not required to be gone into.

A Simple direction upon Respondent authorities was all that was needed keeping in mind that the order dated 14.01.2016 which was an order of

revocation of suspension was not a decision taken in relation to what is to be done with the Petitioner in regard to his service for the period of

suspension. Since the said order of 14.01.2016 by which suspension was revoked was not a decision with regard to how the period of suspension is to

be treated irrespective of the arguments so made, noted which became the reason for dismissal of the writ application, appeal stands disposed off with

a direction upon the competent authority that keeping in mind that the order of revocation of suspension was issued on 14.01.2016 and almost more

than 3 years have elapsed, the competent authority will have an obligation to take a decision as to how they would like to treat the period of suspension

of the Petitioner.