Smt. Kusmi Sanmani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2807 of 2018 Smt. Kusmi Sanmani W/o Shri Ramsagar Paikra Aged About 40 Years Occupation Government Service, Resident Of Deendayal Colony Fase 1 Atarmuda Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector (Land Record) Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State :

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/04/2018

1. The limited prayer, which the petitioner makes, is that the present petitioner has been placed under suspension since 16.03.2017 and the departmental inquiry initiated also has not progressed any further beyond the issuance of the charge sheet, which too was issued in April, 2017, which is almost one year till now.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner may be sent to the competent authority, who may reconsider the case of the petitioner whether there is a necessity for further continuing him under suspension or not in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and another" (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein in paragraph No.21 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"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/Chargesheet 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 sever 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 the 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 the given factual matrix of the case, this Court is not inclined to keep the petition pending and this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction respondent No.3 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ajay Kumar Choudhary" (supra) and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of production of the

certified copy of this order. In the event, if the authorities concerned is not inclined to revoke the suspension order, the authorities would pass a speaking order giving the specific reasons which compels them to continue the suspension.

4. The writ petition thus stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved