S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner herein was suspended from service by means of the order dated 27.2.97 with retroactive effect from 17.2.97. The reason listed out in the impugned order is that the petitioner was incarcerated in jail with effect from the said date, being involved in Case Crime No. 120 of 1997 under Sections 498A/304B, 318/201. I.P.C.
(2.) The suspension order reads as under : "Whereas Sri Rajendra Prasad Pandey, Lower Division Assistant, Second Appeal Section, High Court, Allahabad was lodged in Jail with effect from 17.2.1997 in connection with a Criminal Case No. 120/97, under Section 498A/304B/318/201 of Indian Penal Code, He is accordingly placed under suspension with effect from 17.2.1997. He will be entitled for subsistence allowance as admissible in the relevant Rules." On being enlarged on bail in June, 1997, the petitioner, it seems, moved an application seeking revocation/modification of the suspension order propped up by Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of Education (Basic) U. P. Lucknow and another, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 165, in which following amongst other conclusions were arrived at by the Full Bench in answer to the questions referred to it : "(D) The deemed suspension by an order of the appointing authority under the legal fiction provided in sub-rule (2) may be continued after release by the appointing authority by passing an express order taking into account the guidelines provided in other sub-rule of Rule 49A according to the facts and circumstances of the case, (E) The deemed suspension under sub-rule (2) of Rule 49A may be modified or revoked by the appointing authority on a representation made by the Government servant which shall be considered and decided taking into consideration the guidelines provided in sub-rules (1) and (1A) of Rule 49A." The representation ended up in being rejected by the Registrar vide order dated 8.1.1998, which has been communicated to the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 15.1.1998. Sri Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents produced the original record containing the order dated 8.1.1998. The order dated 8.1.1998, passed by the Registrar is quoted below : "Sri Rajendra Prasad Pandey, L.D.A. who was detained in Crime Case No. 120/97 under Sections 498A. 304B. 318 and 201, I.P.C. P. S. Colonelganj Allahabad for the period from 17.2.1997 to 25.5.1997. He was placed under suspension vide the order dated 27.2.1997. He has now made representation referring the provisions as contained in sub-rules (1) and (1A) of Rule 49A of the U. P. (Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and also the judicial pronouncement made by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Saxena v. Director of Education (Basic) U. P. Lucknow and another, 1997 (1) UPLBEC 165 (FB), wherein it was held that the deemed suspension under Rules 49A (2) (a) and 49A (2) (b) shall be limited only till to the period of detention. Under such circumstances, request has been made by him that since he was suspended under the aforesaid rule and so it should be deemed that his suspension order has already been revoked as soon as he has been released on bail by the Court. The case cited by Sri Rajendra Prasad Pandey is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of his case because in his case vide office Memorandum No. 945/Accounts (A-1) dated 27.2.1997 separate suspension order was passed considering not only deemed to have been placed under suspension. Looking to the gravity and the seriousness of the offence. It is not a fit case where the suspension order be revoked. No further action is required in the matter."
(3.) The submission made by Sri A. P. Sahi is two-fold. Firstly that the suspension order sought to be revoked is essentially a communication of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2) of Rule 49A of the C.C.A. Rules, 1930 and the Registrar fell into error in holding that the case of Chandra Shekhar Saxena was not applicable ; secondly, that in any view of the matter, the provisions of sub-rule (1A) of Rule 49A of the C.C.A. Rules were attracted and the order dated 8.1.1998 having been passed sans proper-self-direction as to whether the indictment against the petitioner is connected with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude, has rendered itself ultra wires. In reply, Sri Sunil Ambwani, appearing for the Opposite Parties, brought to bear the submissions that having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offences, the Registrar has rightly held that it was not a fit case where suspension order could be revoked.;