SURENDRA PRASAD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an employee of the State, was put under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceeding was sought to be terminated by an order dated 31st July, 2003. In the order certain punishments were proposed to be imposed and the suspension of the petitioner was proposed to be revoked. These proposals were subject to the outcome of the investigation that was then pending at the end of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Central Bureau of Investigation completed the investigation and then filed a charge -sheet before the appropriate Special Court making the petitioner as an accused person. In that background, an order was issued on 17th March, 2005 once again putting the petitioner under suspension. On 18th March, 2005, this order dated 17th March, 2005 was communicated to the petitioner whereby he was informed that he had been suspended with effect from 17th March, 2005.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that in terms of the service rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner, the petitioner could be put under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings. If the disciplinary proceedings is concluded and decision is taken to revoke the order of suspension, for the self same charge, even if a criminal case is filed against the petitioner, he may not be suspended again. That appears to be the view of one of the learned single Judges of this Court as reported in the case of Govind Prasad Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., [1995(2) PLJR 89]. In the instant case however, the disciplinary proceedings was not concluded and at the same time suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings was also not revoked. Those were merely proposed subject to the outcome of the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. This was done in view of the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation may or may not find the petitioner to be guilty and accordingly may or may not file a criminal case against the petitioner. When the Central Bureau of Investigation found the petitioner to be guilty resulting in filing of the charge -sheet against him before the criminal court, the suspension which was ordered in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings was, in fact, directed to continue until the proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation comes to an end. The power to put a Government servant under suspension against whom a criminal charge or a proceeding is pending has been squarely covered by Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code. The said Section provides that in order to suspend a Government Officer under the provisions contained in the said Section, it is obligatory to issue a specific order to that effect and that power can only be exercised when the charge made or the proceedings taken against the Government servant is connected with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass the Government servant in the discharge of his duties as such or involves moral turpitude. In the instant case, the subsequent order of punishment was, therefore, a necessity and was required to be passed afresh in order to comply with statutory requirement. In the order itself it has been mentioned that the criminal charge has been made against him in connection with his position as a Government servant. In those circumstances it is not a case where for the self same offence once the petitioner was put under suspension and later the order of suspension was revoked by the disciplinary authority after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and again the petitioner was put under suspension for a criminal proceedings has been initiated, and as such the judgment of this Court, referred to above, has no application insofar as the petitioner is concerned. In the instant case, as aforesaid, the disciplinary proceeding merely proposed to revoke the suspension of the petitioner but did not, in fact, revoke the same for the order was subject to the outcome of the investigation at the end of Central Bureau of Investigation.

(3.) HOWEVER , it is claimed and contended by the petitioner that he has not been paid subsistence allowance at all. This is not permissible. Let subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner be released as quickly as possible but not later than one month from today.