CHANDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was appointed as a Patwari in the year 1982 and was arrested by a trap team of the Vigilance Deptt. on 13th September, 2007 when a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was recovered from his possession. Based on the said recovery, a first information report was lodged, on the basis of which, an investigation was made and, now a criminal case is pending before the Criminal Court against the Petitioner. In the meanwhile, since, the Petitioner was detained in custody for more than 48 hours, the Petitioner was suspended by an order dated 25th September, 2007. Subsequently, an inquiry was initiated and, based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued an order dated 8.12.2008 revoking the inquiry proceedings and directed that a final decision would be taken after the disposal of the criminal case by the Criminal Court and, that the Petitioner would remain under suspension till the completion of the criminal trial. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 25th September, 2007, as well as by the order dated 8.12.2008 has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that once the domestic inquiry proceedings has been revoked, there was No. contemplation of an inquiry and, consequently, the Petitioner cannot remain under suspension any longer. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that an employee could be suspended in exceptional cases Where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. The learned Counsel submitted that in the present case, the inquiry proceedings have been revoked and, therefore, the continuance of the suspension order is patently illegal. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of S.K. Goel v. State of Uttaranchal and Anr.,2005 2 UD 11 wherein the Court held that it was not necessary that an employee should be suspended in every case where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated.

(3.) In my opinion, the said judgment is not applicable) in as much as, the Petitioner was initially suspended under contemplation of an inquiry but, subsequently, the inquiry proceeding was revoked on the ground that on identical charges, the criminal case was pending and the employers thought that it would be proper to await the result of the criminal proceedings. The impugned order dated 8.12.2008 was passed in accordance with the Rule 4 (2) of the Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 which provides for suspension of an employee during the pendency of the criminal trial.