UTTAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 7th March, 2012. The case of the petitioner is that he was arrested on 24th July, 2011 and therefore, he was deemed to be under suspension on and from this date. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was enlarged on bail and therefore, in view of the decisions STATE OF ORISSA V/S BIMALA KUMAR MOHANTY, 1994 AIR(SC) 2296 the order of suspension was liable to be revoked. In fact, an application pursuant to the order dated 3rd January, 2012 was filed and the same was considered and the order passed on 7th March, 2012. As the only reason given in the order dated 7th March, 2012 is the pendency of the Balurghat Police Station Case and for no other reason, the application of the petitioner has been rejected The order of suspension was issued under Rule 7(2) of the 2001 Rules, which contemplates detention of more than 48 hours on a criminal charge. As no charge has been framed and the proceedings are pending, the release from detention is a valid ground for revoking the order of suspension. Therefore, the pendency of the proceedings cannot be a valid ground for refusing the petitioner's prayer, as has been done by the order dated 7th March, 2012 and accordingly, the said order be set aside.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that Rule 7(2) of the 2001 Rules specifically provides for detention in custody for more than 48 hours and on such a situation occurring, the detainee is to be deemed as suspended from the date of his detention and such suspension is to continue until further orders. Until further orders has not been explained but in the decision it has been held that an application would be required for further orders to be passed. This has also been the decision Enlargement on bail cannot be a reason for revocation of the order of suspension. In an unreported decision in W.P. No. 7077 (W) of 2010, the petitioner was directed to file a representation with the Chairman although such written representation is not to be mandatorily considered by the Chairman. Therefore, in the said decision, which is of a coordinate Bench, the same be followed in view of the decisions and In the event, there are two different views on the same subject, one may be followed but in view of the decision the same issue may also be refereed to a larger Bench., 1994 AIR(SC) 2296 relied on by the petitioner is distinguishable as it does not deal with the deemed suspension under Rule 7(2) of the 2001 Rules so also in the issue involved in this writ petition was not considered. On the other hand, was a case where "until further orders" was considered and it has been held that an order of suspension does not loose its efficacy nor it stands automatically terminated the moment the detention comes to an end and the person is set at large. Mere enlarging the petitioner on bail will not warrant revocation of the order of suspension and the order dated 7th March, 2012 calls for no interference.

(3.) In reply, Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the decision