M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4132 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 13.7.2006 whereby the respondent (writ petitioner) was put under suspension on the allegations of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the appellant - Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: At the relevant time, the writ petitioner was holding the post of Junior Engineer posted at Jamshedpur. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short 'JSEB'), the respondent -writ petitioner was put under suspension on the allegations that he was prima facie found guilty of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the Board and also guilty of gross indiscipline, insubordination and gross misconduct on his part. The case of the writ petition was that while he was posted as Junior Engineer, he conducted raids to unearth large scale energy theft and became an eyesore of many including Electrical Superintending Engineer. Before the learned Single Judge, the impugned order of suspension was challenged mainly on the ground that the impugned order was issued by the Additional Secretary which is without jurisdiction. It was contended that according to the provisions of Rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules applicable to the employees of the Board, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate, may place a Government servant under suspension where departmental proceeding is contemplated. The learned Single, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion as mentioned in para. 6 of the judgment which is quoted herein below: 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering their submissions and also considering the facts, materials on record and legal provisions placed by them, I find that the petitioner was appointed by the Board. According to the provisions contained in Rule 49A of the Civil Services (C.C. and A) Rules, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Governor by general or special order has been given power to put an employee under suspension. There is no material on record to show that the said power can be delegated to any other authority. It is an admitted position that the impugned order has not been issued either by the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate. The respondents have brought on record one letter issued by the Secretary of the Board by Memo No. 188 dated 17.7.2000 (Annexure -J) in order to show the delegation of financial power to the officers of the Bihar state Electricity Board and it has been stated that on the back of the said Annexure -J, the power to suspend and initiate departmental proceeding against J.E.E. has been delegated to the concerned G.M -cum -C.E., but in the said document there is no reference of Rule 49A of the said Civil Services Rules. Moreover, the said document is incomplete and not authentic as the said document starts from 'No. xviii' and there is no beginning and end of the said document and as such the same has no authenticity. It is well settled that though the suspension is not a punishment, stigma is attached to it and it causes denigration, humiliation and agony to the concerned employee and it also affects him financially, if only subsistence allowance is paid during suspension period. By the impugned order the petitioner has been allowed only subsistence allowance during suspension period. That is the reason, several guidelines have been issued from lime to time and the specific provisions have been made for putting an employee under suspension by the authorities empowered for the said purpose. The respondents have failed to justify the authority and competence of the respondent No. 3 for passing the impugned order of petitioner's suspension, who is admittedly neither the appointing authority nor an authority higher than the appointing authority. The impugned order dated 13.7.06 (Annexure -5) is thus without jurisdiction and is, hereby, quashed. This writ application is allowed. Though other issues have also been raised in the instant case, consideration and decision thereon is hardly required in view of the above conclusion on the competence of the impugned order.
(3.) FROM the aforesaid paragraph, it is manifestly clear that the learned Single Judge, after holding the order of suspension was not issued either by the appointing authority or by any authority to which it is subordinate, held that the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 is without jurisdiction. Memo No. 188 dated 17.7.2006 was brought by the Board to show the delegation of power. The learned Single Judge did not rely upon it on the ground that there is no reference of Rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules.;