M. K. VENKATESH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the suspension order dated 08.08.2017, passed by the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, (Administration), Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ("BBMP", for short).

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that prior to 2007, the Bommanahalli City Municipal Council existed as a separate Municipal Council. In 2007, the petitioner joined the Bommanahalli City Municipal Council as a Junior Engineer. Subsequently, the Bommanahalli City Municipal Council merged with the BBMP. Therefore, the petitioner consented to continue with the BBMP as a Junior Engineer. In 2012, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. As an Assistant Executive Engineer, he was supervising the work of an Assistant Engineer, a Junior Engineer and two Work Inspectors. However, during the month of March, 2017, his team members, mentioned above, were transferred. Hence, the petitioner was left as one man army. But, despite lack of staff and assisting hands, the petitioner issued necessary notices under Section 321 (1) and 321 (2) of the KMC Act, to those builders and owners who were carrying on construction of their buildings de hors the sanctioned plans. But, suddenly by order dated 08.08.2017, the petitioner has been suspended ostensibly on the ground that he has failed to discharge his duties, and has failed to take action against those who are constructing buildings de hors the sanctioned plans. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Relying on the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and another [ 2015 AIR SCW 2520], Mr. Naveed Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that according to the Supreme Court, the suspension order cannot be for an indefinite period. In fact, taking cue from Section 167 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that in case charges are not framed against the delinquent officer/employee within a period of ninety days, the suspension order cannot be continued by the employer. In the present case, despite the lapse of almost five months, so far, charges have not been framed against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner continues to be in a limbo, as neither any charges have been framed against him, nor the suspension order dated 08.08.2016 has been recalled. Therefore, the suspension order should be set aside by this Court.