HIMACHAL AYURVEDIC ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance to our order dated 24th July, 2006, Secretary (Ayurveda), Government of Himachal Pradesh, has filed his affidavit, which we have perused.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2, and Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.

(3.) 3. At this stage, we are concerned only with the issue of the deemed suspension of respondent No. 3 owing to the fact that he was in detention (police custody as well as on judicial remand) for a period of more than 48 hours, between 8th October to 12th October, 2004. Relevant facts of the case have been taken note of in our order dated 24th July, 2006. The affidavit of the Secretary (Ayurveda) also informs us that respondent No. 3 did remain in custody for more than 48 hours during October, 2004 but the State Government came to know about this fact only in March, 2006 after an inquiry had been conducted into this matter. The stand of respondents No. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid affidavit of Secretary (Ayurveda) is that since the Government came to know about the detention of respondent No. 3 only in March, 2006, they did not issue or pass any formal order of deemed suspension because the petitioner had all along, despite his having been detained in custody for more than 48 hours in October, 2004, been working in the Department of Ayurveda. The affidavit also says that respondent No. 3 has been charge -sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 for imposition of a major penalty on the ground that he concealed the fact of his having been detained in custody for more than 48 hours. Reply to the charge -sheet, according to the affidavit, has been filed by respondent No. 3, which has been shown to us today by Mr. Chandel from the official records. A perusal of the reply reveals that respondent No. 3 admits to his having been detained in custody for more than 48 hours even though he has taken a specious plea in the reply that for major part of his detention he was not in police station but was in transit while he was performing journey between Rajpura to Chamba and Chamba to Rajpura. The plea is specious because whether a detainee is in transit, or he is in hospital, the fact remains that he continues to be in custody and detention.