- (1.) HEARD Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1and2.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 04-12-2006 passed by the respondent no. 1, annexed as annexure no. 4 to the writ petition. On 12-02-2007, learned Stand ing Counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit, but no counter affida vit has been filed till date. By the impugned order dated 4th December 2006, the petitioner, who was working as Sanitary and Food Inspector, Nagar Palika Parishad, Manglore, Dis trict Haridwar was put under suspension on two counts. Firstly, the petitioner was caught red handed and trapped by the vigilance party while he was taking bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and secondly, that he was put behind the bars for more than 48 hrs.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds. It was contended firstly that prior to pass ing of the impugned order i. e. on 4th December 2006, the petitioner was al ready bailed out, as such, in view of Rule 3 (a) of Uttaranchal Govt. Servant Disciplinary and Appeal Rules 2003 (here inafter referred to as the Rules), the pe titioner should not have been placed un der suspension as the suspension order under Rule-3 (a) can be passed only when a person is behind the bars, which is clear from the Rule 3 (b) which pro vides that after release from the custody, the person who has been put behind the bars, may inform in writing to the com petent authority who shall after consid ering the representation in the light of the events may pass further orders in cluding revoking or modifying the sus pension order. Rule 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the Rules are quoted hereunder: "3 (a) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed or, as the case may be, continued to be placed under suspension by an order of the Authority competent to suspend, with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether the detention is on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period ex ceeding forty eight hours. " " (b ). THE aforesaid Government serv ant shall, after the release from the custody, inform in writing to the Com petent Authority about his detention and may also make representation against the deemed suspension. THE Competent Authority shall, after con sidering the representation in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions con tained in this Rule pass appropriate order continuing the deemed suspen sion from the date of release from custody or revoking or modifying it. " Submission of the learned coun sel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of Clause- (b) of Rule 3 of the said Rule, as the suspension order has been passed after the petitioner was bailed out. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was permitted to join the office on 1st December 2006, after he was released on bail on 30th Novem ber 2006. After his release on bail and joining the office he has already moved representation before the competent au thority, to consider the facts and pass order for revoking the suspension order which is still pending before the compe tent authority.;