SURESH KUMAR PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as Assistant Transport Inspector in the office of Transport Commissioner, Gwalior, has filed this petition assailing the order of suspension dated 17.10.05. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Transport Sub -Inspector and was posted at pitol Check Post, District Jhabua. A criminal case as Crime No. 17/2000 for having committed offence under Section 13(1) (E) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him and he was arrested by Special Police Establishment Lokayukt Division Indore on 14.2.2000. Vide order dated 23.2.2000 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was suspended by the Transport Commissioner, Gwalior. However, after about two months, the order of suspension was revoked on 13.4.2000 vide Annexure P/4 and the petitioner was posted at Check Post Morena vide Annexure P/5 dated 22.4.2000. After investigation, the matter was placed before the State Government. The State Govt, on examining the record found that the total income from the salary of the petitioner was 9.45 lacs; whereas his total assets and expenditure incurred came to Rs. 46.74 lacs which was above 370% of the income of the petitioner and the State Government found a prima -facie case against the petitioner and granted permission for his prosecution vide letter dated 12.5.04. The Lokayukt after permission, filed a challan before the Special Judge on 18.6.04 and Special Establishment Department Lokayukt vide letter dated 21.7.04 intimated the State Govt, and the respondent no. 2 immediately after filing of challan vide order dated 24.7.04 again suspended the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the above suspension order by filing W.P. No.2330/04 before this Court on the ground that he cannot be suspended again after four years because challan has been filed in the criminal Court on 18.6.04. This Court by order dated 22.9.05 has held that the legislative intent was that normally when a challan is filed, the employee can be suspended, but at the same time the power is given to the Government to revoke suspension even after filing of challan, meaning thereby that suspension has to be ordered after considering the facts and circumstances of the each case, State Govt, or the competent authority has to act independently by application of mind. Due to his involvement in the same criminal case, the petitioner was suspended, thereafter the disciplinary authority had revoked his suspension. Now as the challan is filed, it is well within the right of the competent authority or the State Govt. to suspend the employee, but they have to act by independent application of mind and cannot be permitted to take action only because the same communication is received and direction is issued by the office of the Lokayukt. The direction issued by the Lokayukt is only recommendatory in nature and for the purpose of suspending an employee, independent application of mind has to be made by the State Govt. and thereafter a decision has to be taken. Permitting the State Government to act without application of mind mechanically merely because the organization of Lokayukt has directed to do so is not permissible. This Court held that independent application of mind has to be made by the State Govt. or disciplinary authority and first Proviso to Rule 9 (1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1966") gives power to the State Government to take action in the matter after application of mind and it cannot be said that in all cases the employee has to be suspended because challan is filed and disposed of the petition in the following terms :

(3.) THE respondent no. 1 in compliance to the order of this Court dated 22.9.05 examined the matter afresh and passed a detailed order giving cogent reasons for suspending the petitioner and by holding that the charges are grave and they have come to the conclusion that during the criminal proceedings, the petitioner should not continue in employment to enable him to conduct the proceedings unhindered. It is also averred that on examining the case of the petitioner, it was found that allegations made against the petitioner were grave inasmuch as he prepared the forged document to justify his expenditure of Rs.36.80 lacs against the total income of Rs.9.94 lacs. The respondent no. 1 decided to suspend the petitioner during the pendency of the Court case and rejected his application for revoking suspension vide impugned order dated 17.10.05.