High CourtsSingle Bench

HEMANT KUMAR JOSHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 16 March 2018 · Citation: (2018) 03 CHH CK 0061

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. SAM KOSHY
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
WPS No. 2346 of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 375 words
1.

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order of suspension which has been issued on 15/12/2015.

2.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, the respondent/State may reconsider the issue of keeping the petitioner in a prolong

suspension in the light of judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme’ Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (through its

Secretary) and Another [2015 7 SCC 291]. It was further contended that, though the petitioner has been placed under suspension from 15/12/2015 till

date, the petitioner has not been paid with the subsistence allowance.

3.

So far as the first part of the petition is concerned, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the petitioner for interfering

with the order of suspension at this juncture for the reason that, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in the light of proviso to rule 9 (1) of

Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

4.

The admitted fact is that, the petitioner has been involved in a criminal case in case No.86/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 409,

467, 468 and 471/34 of I.P.C. The said criminal case is still pending consideration before the trial court.

5.

Under the circumstances, the petitioner would remain under suspension as per the proviso to Section 9 (1) of the rules of 1966.

6.

In the given facts i.e. the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner, the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar

Choudhary (Supra) would not be applicable.

7.

However under no circumstances can the respondents deny the

petitioner of subsistence allowance which is payable to him.

8.

The subsistence allowance is provided for the sustenance and survival of the employee during the period that he has been placed under

suspension. The petitioner as it is remained under suspension for a period of 2 years.

9.

The respondents are therefore directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid subsistence allowance forthwith within a period of 60 days from the date

the petitioner makes available the certified copy of this order to the competent authority.

10.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off.