CHAITRAM SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Seema Sah, the learned counsel for the Union of India/respondents. The petitioner is a guard working in the Survey of India, Surveyor General's Office, Dehradun. The marriage of the son of the petitioner was solemnized on 10th February, 2010 with one Abhilasha Sharma. It is alleged that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner did not get along with the petitioner and had started threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner contends that he had made a written complaint to the S.S.P. Dehradun as well as to the District Magistrate, Dehradun and also published a news item indicating that he has no concern with his son and his daughter-in-law and that he is living separately.

(2.) It transpires that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned, who upon considering the matter, directed the police to lodge a First Information Report. Consequently, a Fresh Information Report was lodged on 1st January, 2011 under Section 323, 307, 468, 498A I.P.C. read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Based on this First Information Report, the petitioner was arrested on 3rd January, 2011. The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the petitioner on 17th February, 2011.

(3.) Since the petitioner was arrested, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 3rd January, 2011 by the disciplinary authority vide his order dated 23rd February, 2011 under Rule 10 (2) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 since he was in custody for more than 48 hours in a criminal case. On 25th March, 2011, the Review Committee considered the matter and made a recommendation dated 25th March, 2011 to the effect that it was desirable in public interest to keep the petitioner under suspension for a further period of 180 days w.e.f. 3rd April, 2011 or till the conclusion of the criminal case against him, whichever was earlier. The said recommendation was accepted by the disciplinary authority, who, by its order dated 23rd February, 2011, allowed the suspension order to continue for a period of 180 days w.e.f. 3rd April, 2011 onwards. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has filed the present writ petition.