V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) ON the 3rd August, 2010, on account of complicity of Petitioner in case No. 493 of 2010 under Section 409 IPC, Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days. In contemplation of enquiry, Petitioner has been placed under suspension.
(2.) PETITIONER submits that till today, though the impugned order proceeds to mention that enquiry is contemplated but the fact of the matter is that no charge sheet has been issued and only on account of criminal case being instituted against him, suspension order is there. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been released on bail on 26.4.2010, and therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for revocation of his suspension may be considered and in support of this contention learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rama Shanker v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in, 2010 (3) ADJ 316.
(3.) IN Ram Shanker (supra) this Court observed: Notice may be taken of the Apex Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar : (2003) 6 SCC 516. In paragraph Nos. 14 to 17 of the said decision, the Apex Court has clarified that once a person has been placed under deemed suspension then the same does not get automatically revoked upon release and a fresh order has to be passed. The view expressed by the Full bench in the case of Chandra Shekhar Saxena and etc. v. Director of Education (basic), U.P., Lucknow and Anr., 1997 ALJ 963, to the effect, that the legal fiction by which the deemed suspension operates will cease to be effective upon release, was reversed. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the suspension order but the Respondent -authorities are obliged to pass an appropriate order keeping in view the provisions of Sub - Regulation 5 of Regulation 59. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh relied on the decision in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police v. G. Pandian : (1998) 8 SCC 578, to contend that the provision of deemed suspension applies and the Petitioner has no right to get the suspension order revoked. I have perused the said judgment and the same in paragraph No. 5 considers the impact of a Rule under Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The said decision was nowhere concerned with the power given to the authority to revoke the suspension as in the present case under Sub -regulation 5 of Regulation 59. The aforesaid decision, therefore, does not apply on the rules that are presently under consideration and on the facts and circumstances of the present case.;