STATE OF M.P. Vs. L.P. TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY condoned. Leave granted.

(2.) THE appellant had contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and considered it expedient to keep the respondent under suspension pending the said proceedings. By proceeding dated April 24, 1990, a chargesheet was framed against the respondent on July 5, 1990 and was sent to the engineer -in -Chief, at Bhopal for effecting its service who in his letter dated November 8, 1990 requested the Chief Engineer (Central) at Jabalpur to serve the charge -sheet on the respondent. The latter in turn endorsed it to the Suptdg. Engineer, Panna who deputed his head clerk to serve the charge -sheet on the respondent. The endorsement made by the head clerk on December 21, 1990; reads thus:

(3.) RULE 9 thus contemplates that the disciplinary authority or any authority empowered by the Governor by a general or special order is authorised to place the Govt. Servant under suspension where disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation inquiry or trial. The order of suspension shall contain the reasons for making such order and where it proposes to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14, a copy of articles of the charges, statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which charges are proposed to be sustained shall be issued or caused to be issued by the disciplinary authority to such Govt. Servant within a period of 45 days from the date of order of suspension. By operation of the proviso to sub -rule (2 -a) where the disciplinary authority is the State Govt., the copy of charges and other document" mentioned above shall be issued or caused to be issued to such Govt. Servant within a period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. The object appears to be that the competent authority having placed a delinquent officer under suspension, cannot sit over the case without prompt follow up action of conducting an inquiry into the alleged misconduct. The dereliction thereof entails the authority with denuding the power to continue the officer under suspension, though the power of enquiry subsits. It would be clear from proviso to rule 9 (2 -b) which says that "the period of suspension shall in no case to continue beyond the period of 90 days from the date of the order of suspension". It would thus be clear that where disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated, it is open to the appointing authority, discplinary authority or authorised officer to keep Govt. servant under suspension and have the articles of charges together with the particulars mentioned hereinbefore "shall be issued or caused to be issued" by the authority to such Govt. servant within the period mentioned hereinbefore. On its so issuing the order of suspension remains in force until revoked on reconsideration in terms of the rules based on facts scenario or proceedings terminated by an order on merit". It is thereby clear that service of the article of charge is not a condition precedent. Putting it in transmission within the period is sufficient compliance. No doubt every endeavour has to be made to have the charge sheet served on the delinquent but the delinquent who evades receipt of it, cannot be allowed to take advantage of such evasion.