Paritosh K.Mukherjee - (1.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the continuation of the order of suspension dated 4.9.1995.
(2.) SRI S. C. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged before me that in view of recent judgment of Honourable M. Katju, J., delivered on 19.12.1994, in the case of Jagjeet Singh v. State of U. P. and another, 1995 (1) ESC 329 (All), the petitioner deserves to be given benefit, and there is no necessity of continuation of suspension order. Further since the petitioner was taken into police custody and was enlarged on bail on 24.8.1995, there is no earthly reason in putting the petitioner under suspension, even after his enlargement. Having heard learned counself for the parties, I am of the view that the contingency of remaining in police custody for 48 hours of a Government servant was in the mind of rule-making authority, while framing rules, and it was in this view of the matter that a provision was made for "deemed suspension" during the period a Government servant remains in police custody. If a person is taken into custody, it is quite impossible for him to function his official duties. It is because of this reason, that provision of suspension is must, during the period of his remaining in jail. But when he is enlarged on bail, he should be given duty as during the pendency of criminal trial, keeping him under suspension is against the principle of natural Justice.
(3.) SRI K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel also pointed out that the case of Jagjeet Singh (supra) has already been referred to a Larger Bench by Honourable S.P. SRIvastava, J. and Honourable B. K. Roy, J. Be that as it may. In the present case, since the petitioner has been enlarged on bail, as such, prima facie there appears to be no justification for continuation of the order of suspension till finalisation of the criminal trial, which is bound to take a considerable period of time.;