MAHENDRA KUMAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an employee of the respondents-Bihar State Scheduled Caste Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd. He was suspended vide order dated 12-5-1999, Annexure-5, on the ground that a criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner and one Sarju Manjhi on the charge that they by committing forgery have withdrwn Rs. 2,05,000/- from the Bank. In the writ petition, it has been stated that allegation against the petitioner in the criminal case is false. Moreover, neither departmental proceeding has been initiated against him nor charge-sheet has been furnished to him. THE criminal case is pending for investigation. THE petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail. THE petitioner has thus filed writ petition for quashing the order, Annexure-5.

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit and supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner has been suspended on the ground that a criminal case has been lodged against him on the charge that he and one Sarju Manjhi by committing forgery have withdrawn substantial amount from the Bank. Moreover, departmental proceeding has been initiated. The conducting Officer has been appointed vide Annexure 'X1 to the supplementary affidavit. The charge-sheet has also been furnished to the petitioner on 13-9-2000 which was received by him on the same day.

(3.) FROM perusal of the aforesaid provision it appears that Rule 100 mandates suspension only in a case where the employee of the Government is involved in criminal case. The grant of bail/anticipatory bail is not at all relevant for the purpose. In the case of Sarju Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1937 PLJR 285 the Full Bench of this Court has held as follows: