SAROJ KUMAR DATTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this cane are shortly as follows : In December, 1951, the petitioner who is an accountant, was appointed as a Chief Accountant under the Directorate of Transportation of the State of West Bengal. In 1953, the petitioner's post was re-designated as a Director of Administration and Accounts, in the Directorate of Transportation, Government of West Bengal. In May, 1955, it was discovered that there were certain defalcations for large sum in connection with the motor vehicle tax in respect of vehicles run by the said Department, Upon that discovery, one Birendra Kumar Gupta, who was a clerk in the said department and in change of the payments, absconded. Subsequently the said Birendra Kumar Gupta surrendered before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barrackpore and made a confessional statement implicating the petitioner in respect of the defalcations. On the 29/30th June, 1955, the petitioner's residence was searched and he was arrested . On the 1-7-1955, the S. D. O. Barrackpore released him on bail. On 2-7-1955 an order was passed suspending the petitioner. A copy of that order is annexure 'A' to the petition. The relevant part of the order is as follows :

(2.) On or about 8-12-1956, the S. D. O. Barrackpore received a letter from the Criminal Investigation Department that Government did not consider that there was a prima-facie case against the petitioner and no sanction was granted under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the prosecution of the petitioner. It is stated that on 8-1-1957 the petitioner was discharged by the S. D. O. Barrackpore and the bail-bond was released. On 9-1-1957 the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to release him from suspension, but there has been no such release. In fact the suspension order still continues and he has not been allowed to rejoin. This Rule is directed against this suspension order and the continuance thereof. According to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as soon as he was released from custody the suspension order spent itself, and unless there was a specific order made again for his suspension while he was not in Custody, he could not be legally considered to be under suspension and therefore the respondents are in the wrong in so far as they are treating him as suspended. The respondents take up the petition that the order of suspension is a composite order. It is not an Order made simply because the petitioner was arrested, but also because of the defalcation that had taken place while the petitioner was in the helm of affairs, and in respect of which departmenal proceedings are contemplated, and the order of suspension will continue until the departmental proceedings terminate. When this application first came up, a grievance was made by the petitioner on the question of the contemplated departmental proceedings. It was urged, and not without reason, that the petitioner was being kept indefinitely suspended without departmental proceedings being initiated and without even a charge-sheet being served. On behalf of the respondents it was stated that the difficulty was that this clerk Birendra Kumar Gupta was being prosecuted before a special Court and all relevant documents, books etc., were required for that prosecution and it was very difficult and almost Impossible to go on with the departmental proceedings in the absence of such documents. I however pointed out that the criminal proceedings against Gupta might take years and if the matter goes higher up, the time taken may stretch beyond reasonable limits. So far as the respondents are concerned, they were agreeable that a charge-sheet should be submitted at once, and departmental proceedings commenced without delay, and the matter decided one way or the other within a reasonable time. The petitioner however, having taken time to consider the proposition, has turned it down and stands on his strict legal rights which will therefore have to be considered. The stand that the petitioner has taken is really dependent on a rule occurring in the Fundamental Rules. It is to be found in Vol. II of the Fundamental Rules, App. No. 3, heading IV, described as "Suspension during pendency of criminal proceedings or proceedings for arrest for debt or during detention under a law providing for preventive detention." The particular rule being Rule 2, which rims as follows :

(3.) This rule has been interpreted by me in Surjya Kumar Chatterjee v. S. N. Banerjee. There, the suspension order was in the following form :