AJIT KUMAR SON OF LATE GOKHUL PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-153
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on July 07,2017

Ajit Kumar Son Of Late Gokhul Prasad Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for quashing the order dated 02.01.2017 issued by respondent no.4 pertaining to suspension of the petitioner from services and for direction for keeping the order dated 02.01.2017 in abeyance during the pendency of the writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts as averred in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed on the Assistant Director at the Dairy Development Directorate at Ranchi, Jharkhand alongwith additional charges of District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga and District Dairy Development Officer, Latehar vide order dated 30.06.2014 apart from the above petitioner was also holding the post of Nodal Officer Integrated Dairy Development Program, Dhanbad. One Ashok Kumar Sinha was holding the post of District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga prior to the appointment of the petitioner. An FIR was lodged at Lohardaga Police Station on 22.06.2016 being P.S. Case No.92 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.372 of 2016 against the petitioner and Ashok Kumar Sinha by Chhanda Bhattacharjee wherein it was alleged that Ashok Kumar Sinha has been impersonating as the petitioner and had been not only working in the capacity of District Dairy Development Officer, i.e., the post of the petitioner, but was also identifying himself to others as the District Dairy Development Officer at the various departmental meetings as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It has further been alleged that there was some kind of collusion between the petitioner and Ashok Kumar Sinha. In pursuance to the said FIR, the petitioner was enlarged on Anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.10.2016 by the learned Sessions Judge. A show cause notice dated 08.07.2016 was issued to the petitioner on the basis of a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga dated 22.06.2016 and the petitioner has filed his show cause reply denying the allegations made therein. The petitioner was also requested to discharge the additional charge of District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga and also for transfer of Ashok Kumar Sinha to some other place. It has further been stated that the petitioner never delegated any of his duties as the District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga to Ashok Kumar Sinha, nor did he ask him to preside over the meetings or identify himself as the District Dairy Development Officer to other government officials. By way of non-speaking order dated 02.01.2017, the petitioner has been suspended from services vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of suspension, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order is extremely atrocious and severe in nature in view of the fact that the petitioner never indulged in any illegal or immoral activity and the petitioner has a spotless career and by the impugned order of suspension, the petitioner has been subjected to serious civil consequences. Learned senior counsel further submits that the impugned order of suspension has not passed by the competent authorities since the petitioner is a Class-II gazetted employee which can be suspended only by the authority of the State Government being the appointing authority but the impugned order which has been passed by the respondent vide dated 02.01.2017. Who is not competent to pass such order. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner during course of hearing referred to supplementary affidavit dated 31.01.2017 wherein it has been submitted that the final report dated 31.12.2016 has been submitted by the investigating officer in connection with P.S. Case No.92/16 lodged under Section 170/417/419 of the Indian Penal Code wherein involvement of the accused was not found during the investigation as per Annexure-S-I.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.