RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case disclose twin tragedies - one suffered by the petitioner and the other by the public and as will be seen hereafter, completely lope-sided, causal and perfunctory approach adopted by the departmental authorities has caused immense loss to the public exchequer. The petitioner who was serving as a Steno-typist in Public Works Department (Building and Roads Branch), Punjab and was posted at Amritsar, was placed under suspension on September 20, 1982 in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. An FIR was also registered against him under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on 21.4.1984. The investigation of the criminal case took almost two years and it took another eight years for the prosecution to tender evidence half-heartedly. Consequently, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar acquitted the petitioner on 19.2.1994 by giving him benefit of doubt. In the meantime, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.1.1983 to which he submitted a reply dated 16.3.1983. Enquiry Officer was appointed on 20.4.1983 and he submitted report some time in the year 1984. Show cause notice dated 3.8.1984 was issued to the petitioner and he was served with a copy of the enquiry report which contained a finding that charges levelled against him stand proved. After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner made some applications for being permitted to inspect the record and it appears that the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer concerned accepted his request with a direction that he should submit his reply to the show cause notice within stipulated period. After 1986, there was a silence on both the fronts. The petitioner did not bother to file reply and the department did not bother to take further action. The matter remained pending till the acquittal of the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. Immediately after acquittal the petitioner started his efforts for reinstatement by making representations to the Superintending Engineer followed by a detailed representation to the Secretary, PWD (B&R Branch), Punjab, Chandigarh and when nothing tangible happened, he moved this Court on 13.3.1996 and prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash order of suspension as well as the charge sheet dated 17.1.1983 and also that the respondent-department be directed to reinstate him in service forthwith with all consequential monetary benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that prolonged suspension of the petitioner for over 13 years has virtually ruined the life of the petitioner and keeping in view the agony suffered by him by being subjected to prosecution and the departmental enquiry for such a long time, the proceedings of the enquiry should be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate him in service. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand, submitted that in the enquiry proceedings held against him the petitioner has virtually admitted various allegations levelled against him and there is no explanation available with the departmental authorities for not taking action against the petitioner after the year 1986 and in any case, after his acquittal by the competent Court. She further submitted that the delay after 1994 can be explained because the departmental authorities had taken a decision to challenge the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, by way of appeal.

(3.) The right of the employer to suspend his employee is inherent in his right to make appointment. In what circumstances an employee can be placed under suspension primarily lies in the domain of the employer. It is always open to the employer to consider prima facie the allegations levelled against the employee and pass an order so as to prevent him from physically discharging the duties of a particular post. In a given case, the employer may exercise his power to supend the employee even before initiation of the departmental enquiry. Suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry is also a well recognised legal concept. In fact, most of the disciplinary appeal rules authorise the competent authorities to suspend an employee during the pendency or in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. Court's interference in such matters is warranted only when it is established that the order of suspension has been passed in violation of the provisions of law or there is patent arbitrariness in the action taken by the employer.