CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Amitava Mukherjee, Director Telecommunication, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur, who has been put under suspension vide order dated 29. 9. 1988 (Annexure-1), a corrigendum of which has been issued on 30. 9. 1988 vide Annexure 2. The suspension was ordered on account of a criminal case registered against him bearing FIR No. 70/88 for the offences under ss. 120 (b), 420, 460, 468, 470, 471, 477 (A), 489 of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 5 (1) (d) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are as under - That a FIR bearing No. 70/88 was registered against the petitioner on 29. 7. 1988 and the Second FIR bearing No. 196/88 was registered as FIR No. 8/89 in the Anti-corruption Department, Jaipur and the third bearing No. 120/88 was also registered in the Anti-corruption Department, Jaipur against the petitioner on 9. 12. 1988. All the three FIRs have been filed marked as Annexure- 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Before the two other FIRs were filled, the peitioner was suspended as" aforesaid. The petitioner made several representation against his suspension claiming that the purchases have not been made by him but they have been approved by the regular Committee and orders have been placed on the firms as approved by the Committee, after obtaining approval of the Chief Accounts Officer and whenever necessary from the Govt. and, therefore, his suspension should be revovked. It was also contended by him that the preliminary enquiry was made against him by an Officer i. e. Shri Pradeep Vyas, who was inimical to him. He has also claimed that the IPS lobbey was interested in getting him removed frorn. this post so that the post of Director, Telecommunication, Rajasthan Police, may be occupied by an IPS Officer. Respondent No. 3 Shri M. L. Kalia and respondent No. 5 Shri G. P. Pilania have been added as parties/respondents only for that purpose. Both of them have now retired from Indian Police Service. Be that as it may, it has been claimed that the total purchases worth Rs. 20 or 21 lacs were made out of which purchases of Rs. 15 lacs were made from M/s. Classic Electronics and purchases worth Rs. 5 lacs were made from United Electronics and some purchases were made from Nutan Enterprises. A Sample Testing Committee was appointed which was chaired by the Chairman and DIG (P) Wireless and ex-officio Director of the Wireless Shri P. N. Raina and Superintendent of Police (Wireless), Jaipur i. e. , the petitioner; Superintendent of Police (Wireless) (A) and Station Engineer of 'str i. e. Shri S. C. Pant and station Engineer of TV, Jaipur i. e. Shri S. Prasad and H. B. Singh, Addl. Superintendent of Police (Wireless) Jaipur were its members. Seven parties gave their tenders and after scrutiny, tender of M/s. Classic Electronics was approved by this Committee. This will be clear from the letter written by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Wireless), Jaipur to the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Department dated 18. 11. 1985. One other Committee for purchases of certain other material was constituted which was headed by Amitava Mukherjee, the then Director Telecommunication i. e. the present petitioner with Shri S. P. Sharma, Superintendent of Police (Telecommunication), Shri H. C. Pant, Station Engineer All India Radio, Shri H. Prasad, Station Engineer Doordarshan and Shri Harbans Singh, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Tele-Communications as members and they also approved certain samples. Orders about the approved samples were placed on M/s Classic Electronics and M/s United Electronics. However, the purchases which were made from M/s Nutan Enterprises, the Sample Testing Committee did not include the petitioner. When the goods were received in the Stores, they were tested by the concerned Checking Committee and the goods were found in order. Even when the matter was reported to the Anti-corruption Department for investigation, the ACD obtained the report about the quality of goods from the Directorate of Co-ordination and Police Wireless and Inspector General, Telecommunications, Boarder Security Force and they reported that the goods purchased were of required quality and it is because of this that FR was submitted in FIR case bearing No. 123/88. Be that as it may, it is clear from these averments that the goods have been purchased and they have been received in the Stores and there is no report that the goods were in short supply or were of sub-standard. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1988 and it took five long years to submit the challans by the ACD in the Court. The Challans have been submitted by the ACD in FIR No. 70/88 and 8/89 on 4. 6. 1993 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases whereas this writ petition has been filed on 6. 5. 1993. Thus, they have taken almost five long years to complete the investigation. A man of such a senior rank, who is highly qualified as he possesses a degree of M. Tech. in Radio-physics and Electronics with the special subjects of Advance Electronics has been kept under suspension for all these five long years when purchases have not been approved by the petitioner alone and the goods ordered have been received in the Stores. The purchases have been made after inviting tenders and after making a scrutiny of all the samples by High-powered Committees which consisted of experts in the subject and moreover, most of the orders have been placed with the prior approval of the Chief Accounts Officer or the Govt. , as the case may be.
(3.) MR. B. P. Aggarwal, the learned Advocate General has submitted that although it is true that very long time has been taken in completing the investigation and a high ranking Officer was kept under suspension for the long period of five years for irregular purchases amounting to Rs. 20-21 lacs but he submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the charges which were levelled against the petitioner and further looking to the fact that a challan has been filed, the petitioner's suspension should not be revoked The allegation of the malafides which has been made against the petitioner for making these purchases is that his brother-in-law one MR. Robin Chatterjee and M/s United Electronics. M/s Classic Electronics is owned by Shri Suman Chatterjee is an employee of M/s Classic Electronic and M/s United Electronics is owned by Shri Sanjeev Mudgal. His brother-in-law was an employee of these firms. It was a case of making purchases by inviting tenders and examination and approval of samples by the Committee as submitted by MR. Singhi, At this stage, I would not like to express any opinion about the merits of the charge because that may adversely effect the trial which is expected to take place against the petitioner but this much has been admitted by the learned Advocate General also that the trial would take time and consequently, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that keeping the petitioner under suspension appears to be unjust and unreasonable specially because even after the expiry of five years, no departmental enquiry has been instituted against the petitioner and even the trial is at the very initial stage because only a charge-sheet has been filed and even charges have not been framed against the petitioner. Suspension cannot be utilized as a measure of punishment. It should usually be made to facilitate the faire enquiry or investigation and cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to harass a Govt. Servant or to punish him for his acts of indiscretion if at all it may prove out to be. Mr. Singhvi has also brought to the notice of the Court that ACD investigation was pending against one Shri B. K. Meena, IAS. He was also placed under suspension and his suspension was revoked pending trial in the court after filing of the challan even when the charges were much graver against Shri B. K. Meena. He drew my attention to the copy of the revocation order of suspension of Shri B. K. Meena, bearing No. F2 (33) DOP/aiii/90pt. II dated 7. 10. 1993. He has also drawn my attention to a revocation order of suspension of Shri Tahil Meghnani issued by the Govt. bearing No. F2 (77)DOP/k-3/86 dated 30. 7. 1993. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and having gone through the record of the case and without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case, I am inclined to take the view that keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner's suspension deserves to be revoked forthwith and accordingly, it is hereby revoked with immediate effect and the petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith. However, while giving a posting to the petitioner after his reinstatement, which should be done forthwith as aforesaid, the Govt. will be at liberty to put any constraints on the exercise of the financial powers by him. Such a course was adopted by the Inspector General of Police vide his order No. Trg. (Conf/comp/ (l) (87)/67 dated 2. 4. 1988 in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as aforesaid on merits. It is further clarified that this order will not prejudice either the petitioner or the State Govt. in prosecuting the remedies which are available to them under law before the competent court and any observations that are made in this order will not prejudice the trial of the petitioner before the competent court. . ;