BALRAMSINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the legality of suspension order dated May 7, 1987 (Annexure P-1) issued against him by the respondent.

(2.) IT is stated in the petition that no departmental enquiry or criminal case is pending against him. According to him, while posted at Mahasamund as a Revenue Inspector, he was alleged to have been apprehended by Shri S. K. Verma, D. S. P. (Vigilance) while accepting bribe of Rs. 100/ -. The petitioner was then transferred to Dhamtari. According to him, the amount of Rs. 100/- was paid to him by the complainant against the taxes due against him and accordingly he had informed his higher authorities. After expiry of more than 1 year and 2 months from the date of the alleged incident, the impugned order of suspension was passed against him, which is said to be illegal and against the service rules.

(3.) IN its reply, the respondent has tried to support the impugned order of suspension by submitting that it was in pursuance of a directive (Annexure P-2) issued by the State Government on April 13, 1987 and because of registration of a criminal case against the petitioner. It was said to be justified under Rule 53 (3) of the service rules.