Surendra Pal Malik vs Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari

R.H. Zaidi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

As desired by the learned Counsel for the parties, I decide this case finally at this stage.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that order dated 6.4.1996, whereby the Petitioner has been suspended from the post of Bill. Clerk/Officiating Head Clerk is liable to be set aside on the ground that in the said order, it has not been indicated that the disciplinary proceedings were either under contemplation or proceeding against him. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision In the case of Piyush Kanti Banerjee v. Union of India and Ors. 1981 (1) SLJ 371 and Channamalappa Kallappa v. S.M. Kegur Mysore 1969 SLR 882.

In the said decisions, it has been held that the order of suspension should indicate that at the time of passing of the order, either the enquiry was under contemplation or the proceeding against the delinquent employee was pending, as an employee cannot be kept under suspension perpetually.

In the present case, in the impugned order only this much has been indicated that in the matter of payment of G.P.F. to the teachers, irregularities were committed and Petitioner was found prima facie guilty in the same. It was not stated that disciplinary proceeding was either under contemplation or proceeding against him.

In view of the said facts and law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the impugned order of suspension dated 6.4.1996 is liable to be quashed. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed, the order dated 6.4.1996 Is quashed.

It is, however, made clear that It will be open to the competent authority/Basic Shiksha Adhikari, to pass a fresh order of suspension in accordance with law, if it is required to be passed under the facts and circumstances of the present case.