RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions in support of the application. It is firstly contended that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner was violative of Rule 135 of the Railway Protection Force Rules inasmuch as in passing an order of suspension as against the petitioner no public interest was involved. It was next contended that the respondent No. 3 while considering an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order of suspension has considered irrelevant fact that the petitioner was also guilty for misappropriation although no such charge has been levelled against the petitioner. It was next contended that the petitioner has not been supplied copies of very relevant documents. The learned counsel also contended that in any event as the disciplinary authority had made the preliminary enquiry and all the witnesses had attended his Chamber before making deposition and further in view of the fact that the petitioner himself had asked the Enquiry Officer to examine him as witness, the disciplinary authority is biased against him and in that view of the matter, the petitioner does not expect any justice at his hands. According to the learned Counsel, although the petitioner may not be able to prove the actual bias, but the real likelihood of the bias is there. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel has relied on the cases of Subramonian v. State of Kerala,1973 1 SLR 521,; Dr. K.C. Azad and State of H.P.,1991 3 SLR 326; Dr. Anil Kumar Saha v. State of West Bengal,1985 2 CalHN 291 and Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, 1987 AIR(SC) 2386

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the enquiry proceeding would be completed within a period of four weeks. There cannot be any doubt that while suspending an employee in terms of Rule 135 of the Rules, the public interest ought to have been the guiding factor. However, keeping in view the charges levelled as against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondent concerned has either acted illegally or without jurisdiction. It is true as has been submitted by the learned Counsel, that the appellate authority misconstrued the charges levelled as against the petitioner, but it cannot be said that he has committed any illegality. In any event, in view of the fact that as the enquiry proceeding would be completed at an early date, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where the order of suspension should be directed to be revoked at this stage.