Surendra Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Appellant-Surendra Singh has filed this writ appeal against the impugned judgment dated 9-5-2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2867/2007.

The appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:

In view of the facts and grounds as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

That, this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 28-4-2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Chief Executive Officer - Respondent No. 3.

That, the respondents be directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner on his present post.

Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appellant/petitioner thus in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 28-4-2007 (Annexure P-3 in the writ petition) whereby the appellant/petitioner was placed under suspension.

The appellant/petitioner who was appointed as Headmaster in Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Pendra, District Bilaspur, at the time of his suspension vide order dated 28-4-2007, was working on deputation as Block Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Block - Marwahi, District Bilaspur. After a preliminary enquiry, charges of dereliction of duties and serious irregularities in Government work were found prima facie proved against the petitioner and, therefore, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 28-4-2007 placing the appellant/petitioner under suspension.

The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant/petitioner did not find favour with the Writ Court resulting in dismissal of the appellant''s writ petition vide order dated 9-5-2007.

Shri P. Diwakar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the order impugned in the writ petition of appellant''s suspension is ex facie illegal as no departmental inquiry was contemplated against the appellant/petitioner and the impugned order of suspension was not passed by the Appointing Authority of the appellant/petitioner as contemplated under Rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1966").

Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and contended that though in the impugned order of suspension it is not mentioned that departmental inquiry was contemplated against the appellant/petitioner, but in fact, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. Learned Counsel further submitted that as appellant/petitioner was on deputation all disciplinary control over him was with the borrowing department.

Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 reads as follows:

(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) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or

(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry of 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 as made.

(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority-

(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;

(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.

It is true that a Government servant can be placed under suspension under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 by the Appointing Authority and the other Prescribed Authorities. That too only in the eventualities contemplated in Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 1966, i.e., where a disciplinary proceeding is either pending against him or is contemplated; or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry of trial.

In the present case, an inquiry after passing of the suspension order was initiated against the appellant/petitioner. A charge-sheet was issued and the appellant/petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet. In our considered view, neither Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 1966 nor any other provision of law require that in the order of suspension it should be mentioned that a departmental inquiry is either pending against the appellant/petitioner or is contemplated. The only requirement of Rule 9 is that either departmental inquiry should be pending against the appellant/petitioner or it should be in contemplation. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the first submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner.

The other submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the order of suspension of the appellant/petitioner is bad in law as it was not passed by his Appointing Authority, deserves an outright rejection in view of the specific provision contained in Rule 20 of the Rules, 1966, which reads as follows:

Provisions regarding officers lent to the Union or any other State Government or any Subordinate or Local Authority, etc.-(1) Where the services of a Government servant are lent by one department to another department or to the Union Government or to any other State Government or any authority subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as "the Borrowing Authority"), the Borrowing Authority shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him:

Provided that the Borrowing Authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lend the services of the Government servant (hereinafter in this rule referred to as "the Lending Authority") of the circumstances leading to the order of suspension of such Government servant or the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding as the case may be.

(2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the Government servant:

(i) if the Borrowing Authority is of an opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, it may, after consultation with the Lending Authority, make such orders on the case as it deems necessary:

Provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between the Borrowing Authority and the Lending Authority, the services of the Government servant shall be replaced at the disposal of the Lending Authority;

(ii) if the Borrowing Authority is of the opinion that a penalty specified in Rule 11 should be imposed on any member of Class IV Government servant, it may impose such penalty without consulting the Lending Authority;

(iii) if the Borrowing Authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the Lending Authority and transmit to it the proceedings of the inquiry and thereupon the Lending Authority, may, if it is the Disciplinary Authority pass such orders thereon as it may deem necessary, or, if it is not the Disciplinary Authority submit the case to the Disciplinary Authority, which shall pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary:

Provided that before passing any such order the Disciplinary Authority shall comply with the provisions of Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 15.

On a bare reading of the above quoted Rule 20 of the Rules, 1966, it becomes apparent that in the case of a Government servant on deputation the Borrowing Authority has also all the powers of Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him. As the appellant/petitioner admittedly was working on deputation as Block Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Block- Marwahi, District Bilaspur, respondent No. 3 - Chief Executive Officer was fully empowered by virtue of Rule 20 of the Rules, 1966 to pass the order of appellant''s/ petitioner''s suspension. The submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant otherwise also sounds illogical as the acceptance of the same would result in a situation where the borrowing department will not have any disciplinary control over a Government servant, who has come to that department on deputation. The impugned order reveals that the fact of suspension of the appellant/petitioner was intimated to the appellant''s Appointing Authority which fulfills the legal requirement as contemplated in the Rules, 1966.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity either in the impugned judgment whereby the appellant''s writ petition was dismissed or in the order dated 28-4-2007 impugned in the writ petition whereby the appellant/ petitioner was placed under suspension.

The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.