HEM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure P18 is a telegraphic order placing Hem Chand, Clerk present petition under suspension fixing his headquarter at the office of Civil Surgeon, Narnaul. As per allegations of the petitioners, first information report was registered against him on February 5, 1994 (Annexure P5) and on the following day, he was arrested. He was released on February 10, 1994 and thereafter resumed duty. Order Annexure P18 was subsequently passed on April 27, 1994. As per his case, he could not be placed under suspension beyond the period of detention. According to him, he would be deemed to have been suspended after 48 hours of his detention and his suspension ended with the period of detention.

(2.) On notice of motion, written statement has been filed by the State. In para 14, it is specifically stated that the suspension of the petitioner was on account of his detention in police custody and not on account of departmental enquiry. As per Rule 7.5 of Punjab Civil Services Rules , Vol-I, Part-I, period of suspension had to be up to the period of detention. The aforesaid rule has been considered and interpreted likewise by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.619 of 1994, Ram Pal versus State of Haryana & others decided on August 25, 1994 wherein view has been expressed that suspension on account of detention under Rule 7.5 aforesaid has to be during the period of detention. We agree with the aforesaid view. Thus, placing the petitioner under suspension subsequently on April 27, 1994 by issuing order Annexure P18 cannot be sustained in law and is, therefore, quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents states that departmental enquiry is to be held against the petitioner for the misconduct for which first information report was lodged and since the charge-sheet is yet to be served, the order of suspension cannot be sustained during the period of enquiry. This contention cannot be accepted on the facts of the present case. It has been stated in para 14 of the written statement that basis for the suspension order was detention of the petitioner. Even otherwise, in every case of misconduct a person is not to be placed under suspension. It is only in exceptional cases of gross misconduct resulting in dismissal that the resort should be had to the provision of suspension. Otherwise enquiry can continue and normal consequences can follow. No observation has been made in this order regarding the departmental enquiry, if any, to be initiated against the petitioner on the alleged misconduct. While quashing Annexure P.18, it is directed that the petitioner would be paid arrears of salary within a period of two months. Writ petition is disposed of. Ordered accordingly.