Ku Aarti Panore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2358 of 2018 • Ku Aarti Panore D/o Late Nanaki Ram Panore aged about 34 years R/o Village- Rank, P. S. Seapat, Janpad Panchayat- Masturi District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Capital Complex Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Janpad Panchayat, Masturi through, its Chief Executive Officer, Janapad Panchayat, Masturi District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State/respondent :

Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 16.03.2018

1. The petitioner's grievance as ventilated through this petition is that the petitioner is continuing under suspension for the last 1 years and the departmental enquiry has remained pending.

2. Though the petitioner has not challenged the order of suspension at its inception, its long continuance is arbitrary and liable to be revocked in view of the judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr., (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein the issue with regard to long continuance of suspension was considered and the practice of keeping an employee under suspension for a long time was deprecated and following observations were made:-

"21.

We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to server any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence.

We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."

3. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), long continuance of suspension should not be resorted to, as a matter of practice.

4. According to petitioner even the enquiry officer has not been appointed though the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.03.2017 and that the departmental inquiry has not been concluded for the last one year, there is absolutely no justification for continuance of suspension order for such a long period. Respondent No. 4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court as referred to above and pass necessary order, at the earliest.

5. The petition is accordingly finally disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Pawan