SHAILENDRA KUMAR KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but significant question relating to duration of suspension under Rule 49A(2)(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (for brevity, the Rules) arises for consideration in the case. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows.

(2.) THE Petitioner is a member of the Bihar Finance Service. During his tenure as Assistant Treasury Officer, Ranchi from 17.6.1993 he dealt with contingent bills from August, 1994. On 5.2.1996 he was placed under suspension under Rule 49A(1) of the Rules in contemplation of departmental proceeding on charges of abetting fraudulent withdrawals from the Government Treasury contributing to what has come to be known as fodder scam in the State of Bihar. Though the order indicated that the suspension was in contemplation of departmental proceeding, on 26.2.1998 i.e. 21 days after, he was dismissed from service under proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The dismissal was set aside by this Court on 29.10.1997 in CWJC No. 4235/96. The Court however directed the Petitioner to appear before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes -com - Special Secretary, Department of Finance, with corresponding direction to the Commercial Taxes Commissioner to hand over charge memo in connection with the departmental proceeding to be held against the Petitioner. The Court clarified that the order will not prevent the Respondents from passing another order of suspension in accordance with law. Consequential order cancelling the order of suspension and dismissal was passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 29.8.1998 and the Petitioner was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the head office with effect from the date off suspension i.e. 5.2.1996. Pursuant to the said order the Petitioner submitted his joining on 3.9.1998. Earlier on 24.11.1997 the Petitioner had appeared before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in the light of Court 'sorder dated 29.10.1997 (supra). With a request to hand over copy of the charge memo in connection with the proposed departmental proceeding.

(3.) SHRI Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that by order dated 29.10.1997 this Court had directed the Respondents to serve copy of charge memo and conclude the departmental proceeding. The Petitioner appeared before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in the light of the direction of lis Court but no charge memo was served; in stead, he was reinstated on the post on 29.8.1998. The Respondents were aware that criminal cases were pending against him nonetheless they reinstated the Petitioner and allowed him to join the post. Thus pendency of the criminal cases should not be a ground to pass another order of suspension. If that was so in 1996 or 1998, surely, in 2002 this could not be a ground for suspension. Counsel submitted that the only event which took place during this period was that the Petitioner remained in custody for certain period but that cannot be treated as a ground for continued suspension as the Petitioner had joined the post after his release on bail, functioned for about a year, received his salary etc. The State Government was well aware of these facts. Counsel referred to Annexure 7 purporting to be copy of the joining disclosed about the criminal cases and his release on bail. According to the Counsel, validity of the impugned order has to be considered in the above background.