Rakesh Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel, J.—Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by an order of suspension passed by the concerned respondent authority dated 2nd March, 2009 at Annexure-13 to the memo of the present petition. Several grounds have been agitated in the memo of the petition and during course of arguments, the petitioner has presented himself as innocent person and it is submitted that no irregularity much less illegality is proved against the petitioner as alleged in the chargesheet. It is also submitted that the petitioner is suspended since 2nd March, 2009, but, an enquiry has not yet been completed and therefore, the petitioner''s suspension may be revoked by this Court.

I have heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who have submitted that the petitioner has committed lot of misconducts as stated in the charge-sheet which has been issued by the respondent dated 13th May, 2009, which is at Annexure-C of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Looking to the charges levelled against the present petitioner, if the petitioner is allowed to continue his services, there are all chances that he may tamper with the evidences- or influence the witnesses and therefore, looking to the gravity of the charges and looking to the post of the present petitioner in the Department, the suspension order was passed so that an effective, efficient and independent enquiry may be conducted.

It is also submitted by the respondents that now the charge-sheet has already been served, reply of the charge-sheet has already been filed by the petitioner and enquiry officer has already been appointed and upon instructors from respondent No. 3, Counsel for the respondents submitted that enquiry shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and therefore, suspension order may not be revoked by this Court.

In view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the nature of the charges levelled against the present petitioner, which are pertaining to the bank guarantee of rupees six hundred lakhs and looking to the post of the present petitioner, I am not inclined to revoke the suspension order passed by the concerned respondents dated 2nd March, 2009 at Annexure-13 of the memo of the petition otherwise, there are all chances that the petitioner may tamper with the evidences. Now, the charge-sheet has already been issued and served upon the petitioner. Reply has also been filed and an enquiry officer has been appointed and when as stated hereinabove by Counsel for the respondents that enquiry will be completed, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, I am not inclined to quash an order of suspension and I hereby, direct the State of Jharkhand that the enquiry against the present petitioner shall be completed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall co-operate the enquiry and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournments.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the evidences written in the counter affidavit lead to the conclusion of the enquiry.

In view of these submissions, I hereby, direct the enquiry officer that without being influenced by the counter affidavit filed by the State in the aforesaid matter, he will come to his own conclusion on the basis of the evidences and in accordance with law.

In view of these directions, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.