Viththal vs The Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner has approached this court seeking quashing of the order bearing No. Kavipranini/B21/3611/2014-15 Bengaluru dated 12.5.2014 passed by respondent No. 5 and also sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 to reinstate the petitioner into service.

It is an undisputed fact that while the petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer in the office of the HESCOM, Gokak Rural, a case was registered against him by the Karnataka Lokayuktha, Belgaum Police Station, on 28.3.2014 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Crime No. 4/2014 and the investigation has been started, raid was conducted in the house of the accused and the investigation is still under process. Considering the report of the Lokayuktha in connection with the investigation of the said case and also after applying its mind, the 5th respondent has passed an order of suspension against the petitioner on 12.5.2014. though the investigation started from 2.3.2014, the charge sheet is not yet filed by the Lokayuktha police. However, in spite of repeated requests and representations by the petitioner, the suspension order issued against him has not been revoked and he has not been reinstated into service which made him to approach this court by way of Writ Petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed that-

"Suspension specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso to S. 167(3) which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years and beyond a period of 60 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) , Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. The court, therefore, directed that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of charges/charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension."

The Hon''ble Apex Court has categorically in its observation fixed the time limit for suspension 90 days and extension thereafter is not permissible if no charge sheet is filed. If charge sheet is filed, further extension is ought to be by reasoned order. Further, the Hon''ble Apex Court has taken the contents of provision of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and also equated the detention with the personal freedom of the person and found that the said liberty is equally applicable for the suspension orders.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has made so many representations and finally as per Annexure-J and K, he made representation bringing to the knowledge of the respondent No. 5, the above said decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court and requested respondent No. 5 to revoke the suspension order but no order is passed from the competent authority i.e., respondent No. 5.

In the above said circumstances, there is no reason for the respondent No. 5 in not passing the order on the representation of the petitioner. When the representations have been made, it is incumbent upon the respondent No. 5 to pass appropriate suitable order in accordance with law. Therefore, it is just and necessary to give such direction as sought for. Hence, the following:

The Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, respondent No. 5 is hereby directed to pass appropriate suitable order in accordance with law on letters dated 24.4.2014 and 25.06.2015 vide Annexures J & K and also bearing in mind the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court as noted above. The order shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.