RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi, dated September 24, 1975 placing the petitioner under suspension pending a criminal case against him under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) RAMESH Chandra Srivastava, the petitioner was working as Stenographer to the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur. While he was working in his office he was arrested by the police on September 8, 1975 on charge of accepting illegal gratification. A case was registered against him by the police under Section 16], I.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After his arrest he was sent to Jail. On September 10, 1975 the petitioner applied for bail before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, and he was enlarged on bail on that very day. He was released from the jail custody same evening. Thereafter the petitioner resumed, his duties in the office. On September 24, 1975 the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi, passed the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension pending criminal prosecution.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has contended that the impugned order of suspension is sustainable under Rule 49-A (2) (a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Rule 49-A (2) lays down that a Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed, or as the case may be continued to be placed under suspension by the appointing authority with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether the detention is on criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. Clause (2) (a) of Rule 49-A contemplates that if a Government servant is detained in custody on a criminal charge or otherwise, then he shall be deemed to be under suspension with effect from the date of his detention provided he remains in detention for a period of more than 48 hours. The emphasis is on the period of detention after arrest, if it exceeds 48 hours, then suspension is permissible, but if it does not exceed 48 hours then the Government servant cannot be placed under suspension under that Rule. It is thus clear that the jurisdiction to place a Government servant under suspension under the aforesaid Rule is circumscribed by a condition precedent, viz., that the Government must have been in detention for a period exceeding 48 hours. If this condition precedent is not satisfied, the Government servant cannot be deemed under suspension nor the appointing authority would have jurisdiction to place the Government servant under suspension. If the condition precedent is not satisfied the order of suspension would be invalid.