GOVINDBHAI PURSHOTAMDAS PARMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged order dated 31.12.1992 Annex.B whereby the petitioner carne to be suspended and during suspension period Head Quarter or the petitioner was fixed at Jamnagar.

(2.) Heard Mr. S.V. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Rekha Doshit learned AGP for the Respondents. It has been submitted by Mr. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been suspended by the order date 31.2.1992 Annex.B and his Head Quarter was fixed at Jamnagar by the said order. It was also provided in the said order that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance as per the provisions of sec. 151 of BCSR and that during suspension period petitioner shall not resume any other Govt. or private service and shall not leave Jamnagar without prior permission. It has been further submitted that the order came to be passed only on the ground that a criminal complaint has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420 406 & 409 of the I.P. Code. The charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner has misappropriated money of the employees working in the department of respondent no.1. The petitioner was at the relevant time serving as Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier in the office of respondent no. 1 and was authorised to deduct contributions of the employees towards Recurring Deposit Account and also premium amount of LIC directly from their salaries and instead of depositing the amount so deducted in the respective accounts he himself has misappropriated sum of Rs. 1 66 608 + Rs. 28 0 A criminal complaint Annex.A was filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad on 10.8.1992 and thereafter the petitioner came to be suspended as aforesaid.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted by Mr. S.V. Parmar learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no grounds or reason for suspending the petitioner as investigation regarding misappropriation has been completed and there is now no possibility of the petitioner tampering with any record. Whatever record relevant for the purpose of complaint has been produced in the Court in criminal proceedings and the petitioner is not in possession or custody of any record. He therefore submitted that the suspension order is unwarranted.