PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order of retrospective suspension as contained in memo No.336 dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure-4) issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand on the ground of sanction of prosecution against the petitioner in a case under Section 19 (1) B and 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no.2 for suitable post as per seniority. The Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the impugned resolution dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-5) by which a decision has been taken to initiate the departmental proceeding under Rule 17 and 14 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 upon the charges framed in Prapatra "K" as contained in letter no.89 dated 17.02.2016 of the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara for various irregularities committed by the petitioner as District Education Officer, Jamtara and for quashing the charges under Prapatra "K" against the petitioner vide letter dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure-7) by Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara to the Deputy Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
(2.) The brief facts as averred in the writ application, is that the petitioner being a member of the State Education Service, Class-I and while he was posted as District Education Officer, Jamtara and was holding the additional charge of Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE), Dumka Division, Dumka. The petitioner was falsely implicated in Vigilance P.S. Case No.38/2015 under section 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequent upon a raid, the petitioner was taken into custody. The petitioner was placed under deemed suspension under Rule 99 of the Service Code with effect from 17.07.2012. After being enlarged on bail, the petitioner submitted joining on 23.11.2015 before the Director, Secondary Education. But to the utter surprise vide notification contained in Memo No.336 dated 22.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand once again placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 100 of the Service Code with retrospective effect with effect from 22.11.2015 on the ground of sanction of prosecution. Thereafter, vide departmental resolution a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 and 14 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 as contained in memo dated 13.06.2016 has been issued vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner sought information under R.T.I. Act relating to similarly situated officers of the School Education and Literacy Department who have been implicated in vigilance case under provisions of Prevention and Corruption Act and the information as sought for by the petitioner has been provided by the Assistant Director Cum Public Information Officer, Primary Education as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application. Along-with Departmental resolution dated 13.06.2016 charges drawn in Prapatra "K" was supplied to the petitioner which has been drawn by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on 17.02.2016 i.e. four months prior to initiation of departmental proceeding as per Annexure-7 to the writ application. In the vigilance case, the charge sheet has already been filed against the petitioner by way of submission of final form before the Special Judge Vigilance on 10.09.2015 and therefore there is no occasion for the petitioner to tamper with any of the records or exercise undue influence over the witnesses of the case. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted series of representations before the respondent authorities for revocation of suspension vide Annexure-13 to the writ application. Due to inaction of the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the impugned order of suspension dated 22.12.2015 with retrospective effect i.e. 22.11.2015 is impermissible in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of suspension which continued for about five months without initiation of any formal departmental proceeding is wholly illegal against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of suspension dated 22.12.2015 is a glaring instance of arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide approach of the respondent authorities, because in similar matters where officials of Education Department were implicated in trap cases after revocation of deemed suspension after being enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel further submits that the continuation of the impugned order of suspension even after submission of the charge sheet before the learned Special Judge Vigilance is wholly against the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submits that issuance of charges in Prapatra "K" forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on 17.02.2016 i.e. about four months prior to initiation of formal departmental proceeding is wholly non est in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 1488 Paragraph no. 9, (2013) 5 SCC 111 Paragraphs no.17 and 18, (1980) 3 SCC 734 Page 735, 736, 737. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has referred to Government of Jharkhand Notification dated 3rd February, 2016 pertaining to Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016.;