GOPAL CHARABORTY Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 filed at the instance of one Gopal Chakraborty, petitioner herein, praying for quashing/revoking/setting aside of the impugned order of suspension passed against him by the respondent authority, specially by the respondent No. 2 with a further prayer directing the aforesaid respondent to pay to the applicant all the available service benefit during the period of suspension and to re-compute the subsistence allowance and/or allow him to join his duties as Librarian at Barasat Peary Charan Sarkar Govt. High School.

(2.) The short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under :- The applicant joined at the Barasat Peary Charan Sarkar Govt. High School as a Librarian and was confirmed to the said post w.e.f. 3.12.1985. On 9.11.1994, wife of the applicant lodged a false complaint against the applicant and his parents at Metiabruz Police Station for allegedly torturing her both physically and mentally and also instigating her to commit suicide. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Metiabruz Police arrested the applicant on 16.11.1994 and took him into police custody and a police Case was started against the applicant being Metiabruz P.S. case No. 306 dated 9.11.1994 under Section 498A/406, I.P.C. and under Section 307 of I.RC.The applicant as accused was detained in the judicial custody till 23.11.1994. By an order dated 1.2.1995, issued by the Director of Public Instruction through its Memo No. 266(1/5)A dated 1.2.1995, the applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 17.11.1994 pending disciplinary action against him and until further orders for being detained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours interims of Rule 7(3) of West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1971 (in short C.C.A. Rules, 1971) and it was also directed that the applicant should get subsistence allowance during the suspension period to the tune of half of his basic pay plus other allowances which were drawn by him prior to his date of suspension. It has further been contended that although the suspension order was issued against the applicant way back on 1.2.1995, yet, the concerned authorities have not initiated any departmental proceeding against him and no charge-sheet has also been submitted against him as yet. The applicant therefore, on 17.12.1996 submitted a representation to the Head Master, Barasat Govt. High School with a request that he may be paid the enhanced subsistence allowance since he is under suspension for 2 years and the applicant wrote to the D.P.I, for revision of his pay scale and to allow 75% of his new revised pay as his subsistence allowance, but nothing has been done so far by the concerned authorities. It has further been alleged by the applicant that an order of the appropriate Court it was established against him that no prima facie case under Section 307 of I.PC. has been proved against the applicant and his parents, and the complaint under Section 406 of I.P.C. was also earlier withdrawn by his wife. But the learned Court was of the prima facie opinion that the applicant and his parents have committed offences punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. and the said case is still pending for trial and in the mean time the applicant has secured the decree for divorce against his wife from the competent Court in Mat suit No. 48/96 and after that he again submitted another representation to the respondent No. 2 on 11.10.1999 to consider his order of suspension and allow him to resume his duties for public interest. Lastly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the respondent has not taken any steps to initiate a departmental proceeding against him, there is no reason for continuance of the suspension order against him and it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that at the present moment, the aforesaid suspension order which may be otherwise good in its inception, yet, for its undue prolongation, this has assumed the character of a panel order and as such the same should not be allowed to be continued.

(3.) Hence, this prayer as mentioned at the outset.