D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) PARTY in person has submitted that he is challenging the order of suspension dated 31st January, 2012, passed by the respondents- Police Department, which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, as also the order dated 10th February, 2012, which is at Annexure 10 to the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1877 of 2012, passed by the Transport Department, whereby, the services of the petitioner i.e. party in person, which were given on deputation to the Transport Department, have been returned back to his parental department i.e. Police Department.
(2.) PARTY in person submitted that firstly he has been insulted grossly by the respondents by sending back his services to his parental department and secondly without giving an opportunity of being heard, both the orders have been passed. Thus, the party in person while praying for stay of the repatriation order, submitted that the departmental inquiry, which is pending against the party in person, may be concluded expeditiously. Learned counsel for the State submitted that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in putting the petitioner under suspension vide order at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, during pendency of the departmental inquiry. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the inquiry will be concluded as early as possible and practicable, provided the present petitioner i.e. party in person cooperates with the departmental inquiry. So far as the order at Annexure 10 to the memo of petition is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner was on deputation, his services have been taken by the Transport Department, and, therefore, no illegality has been committed if the services of the petitioner have been returned back to his parental department i.e. Police Department. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that before passing the order at Annexure 10 to the memo of petition, there is no need to give any hearing to the present petitioner, especially when he has already been put under suspension. Neither any right of the present petitioner has been crystallized by the order at Annexure 10 to the memo of petition nor any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the order at Annexure 10 to the memo of petition and, therefore, there is no need of giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, prior to passing of the said order (Annexure 10) and, hence this writ petition may be dismissed with cost. Having heard learned counsel for the party in person as also the learned counsel for the State, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition for the following facts and reasons: (I) It appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioner is a Police Inspector in the Police Department of the respondent-State of Jharkhand and his services were given to the Transport Department on deputation. (ii) It fuhrer appears that looking to several allegations against the present petitioner and also looking to the fact that he has committed some misconduct, he has been put under suspension vide order dated 31st January, 2012, which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition. Before passing the order at Annexure 6, there is no need to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, because this is not a punishment at all. It is the power vested in the respondent-State to put any employee under suspension during pendency of the departmental proceeding, if he is an influential person as there are all chances that he may tamper with the evidence. Had the petitioner, who is a Police Inspector, been allowed to continue in the services, there are all chances that he may tamper with the evidences and, therefore, he should not be allowed to enter into the premises of employment, during pendency of the departmental proceeding. Thus, no illegality has been committed by the respondents in putting the petitioner under suspension, during pendency of the departmental inquiry and, therefore, the order at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition is true, correct and in consonence with the facts of the present case. (iii) So far as the order at Annexure 10 to the memo of petition is concerned, which is dated 10th February, 2012, it is only a repatriation to the parental department of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is a police personnel and his services were given to the Transport Department on deputation and because of the order of suspension, the Transport Department has returned the services of the petitioner back to his parental department. There is, thus, no need to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing the order at Annexure 10, because the order at Annexure 10 is not deciding any right or duty or obligation of the present petitioner.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and reason, there is no substance in this writ petition. Moreover, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the departmental inquiry, which is pending against the petitioner, will be completed at the earliest, provided the petitioner cooperates with the same. I, therefore, direct respondent no.2 to complete the departmental inquiry, pending against the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferable within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, in accordance with law. The State shall not presume the extension of time and if the State requires more time for some cogent reasons, necessary application shall be preferred by the State in this writ petition. I also direct the respondent-State to make payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner, in accordance with law.;