Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bakshi vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Medical Officer in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kawardha. A charge-sheet was filed against him and two others for commission of the offence under the provisions of Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 17-7-2002 (Annexure P-1). After trial, by judgment dated 30-6-2006, passed in Special Case No. 01/2002, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges. After acquittal in the above criminal case, the petitioner submitted the application for joining on 4-10-2006 (Annexure P-3) which was forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Raipur, C.G. by letter dated 7-10-2006 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner also made various representations but his suspension was not revoked.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 31-7-2009. He further submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2008, passed in W.P. (S) No. 6010/2007, U.K. Kulmitra v. State of C.G. and Ors. 2008 (3) M.P.H.T. 20 (Annexure P-5) and the judgment and order passed by this Court in Dhaneshwar Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, , where the relevant Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short ''Rules 1966'') was in issue. It was held that "Rule 9 of the Rules 1966 provides for suspension where a case against the employee in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial, suspension is not necessary to keep away the employee from the work in order to ensure smooth disposal of investigation or trial. In the case of appeal, there is no question of any fresh evidence or deposition, which can be influenced by the petitioner or further records can be tampered with". Thus, the impugned suspension order was quashed and the petition was allowed.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/State fairly submits that the facts and issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the above cited judgments in Dhaneshwar Semi and U.K. Kulmitra (supra).

In view of the foregoing, the impugned suspension order dated 17-7-2002 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from this order. No order as to costs.