MANVENDRA MOHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, originally assailing the validity and correctness of order dated 20.1.2011 (impugned order not marked as Annexure) passed by the respondent Joint Chief Executive Officer of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission'), by which the petitioner has been put under suspension with effect from 4.1.2011 in exercise of his powers under Regulation No. 8 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 2003 (in short 'Regulations, 2003'), and further for seeking a direction to the respondents for making payment of full salary and other admissible allowances with effect from 20.1.2011. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed Interlocutory Application No. 2970 of 2013 seeking amendment in the writ petition, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.4.2013 and thereby the petitioner has been permitted to assail the validity and correctness of order dated 11.8.2011, communicated through Memo dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of the respondent State Director of the Commission, whereby the period of suspension of the petitioner, besides others, has been extended. The factual matrix involved in the present case can be put in a narrow compass. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the respondent Commission and at the relevant time he was posted as Assistant Development Officer under the Directorate of Agro-based Food Processing Industry of the respondent Commission and was working in the State Office, Patna of the respondent Commission. On 29.12.2010, one Nawal Kishore Paswan filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police of C.B.I. alleging therein that the petitioner has demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- for discharging his official duty for the purpose of grant of loan to him. The genuineness of the allegation contained in the aforesaid complaint is said to have been discreetly verified by one of the Officers of the C.B.I., ACB, Patna whereafter RC No. 1 of 2011 dated 3.1.2011 was registered for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A copy of the F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. has been brought on the record at Annexure-1 to the writ petition, wherein the petitioner, besides others, has been arrayed as an accused. On 4.1.2011 a trap was allegedly laid by the C.B.I. and the petitioner was apprehended by the C.B.I. while allegedly accepting bribe, whereafter the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 4.1.2011 itself. The Superintendent of Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna by his letter dated 11.1.2011 informed the respondent Commission that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 4.1.2011 whereafter, as stated above, by the impugned order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the respondent Joint Chief Executive Officer of the respondent Commission, the petitioner was put under suspension retrospectively with effect from 4.1.2011 i.e. since the date of his detention in terms of Regulation 8 of the Regulations, 2003 and his Headquarters has been fixed at State Office, Patna of the respondent Commission.

(2.) It is also not in dispute that the petitioner as also co-accused Ram Bhajan Pawan were granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.3.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5496 of 2011 and Cr. Misc. No. 7914 of 2011 with certain conditions indicated in that order including a condition that they shall be released on bail pursuant to the aforesaid order only after framing of charges against them. Admittedly, charges were framed against the petitioner by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna in Special Case No. 1 of 2011 corresponding to R.C. 1/A/2011 on 28.3.2011 for offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Unfortunately, despite passage of more than two and half years since the date of framing of charges, the trial of the petitioner has not concluded as yet and is still pending. However, on furnishing bail bonds as per direction of this Court, the petitioner was released on bail on 28.3.2011 itself.

(3.) Before adverting to the points raised on behalf of the parties, it would be relevant to mention here that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.1.2011, preferred O.A. No. 244 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, which was dismissed by an order dated 3.7.2012 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It was held by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal that the petitioner is an employee of the respondent Commission, which is an Autonomous Body and the employees of the Commission do not enjoy the status of the employees of the Govt. of India and further the jurisdiction of the tribunal has not been extended with respect to the employees of the respondent Commission by issuing any notification under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The aforesaid order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has been brought on record at Annexure-6 to the writ petition.