ARVIND KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the notification dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure-2) issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3, whereby he has been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (in short "Rules, 2005"),

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a very short question. According to him, Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2005 authorises the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government to put a Government servant under suspension on fulfilment of certain conditions indicated in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2005. It is pointed out that so far the present case is concerned, power of suspension has been exercised in terms of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Rules, 2005 on the ground that a criminal case relating to disproportionate assets is pending against the writ petitioner. It is contended that in case a criminal case is pending against a Government servant either under investigation or inquiry or trial, then he can be put under suspension only when the competent authority records his satisfaction that it is expedient to suspend such Government servant in public interest. It is further contended that in the instant case, no satisfaction at all has been recorded by the competent authority showing expediency for putting the petitioner under suspension in public interest. Therefore, it is pleaded that in absence of such satisfaction having been recorded by the competent authority, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. It is further pointed out that so far the Full Bench Judgment of our own High Court, in the case of State of Bihar vs. Gyan Kumar Ram, 2009 4 PLJR 272 is concerned, it has considered the scheme, scope and mandate of Rules 9(1)(a) and 9(7) of the Rules, 2005 only and it has not considered the scheme, scope and mandate of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Rules, 2005.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader No. 30 appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and by referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has tried to support the impugned order. It is contended by the learned State Counsel that admittedly a criminal proceeding as also a departmental proceeding are pending against the petitioner. Therefore, even if there is no reference of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules, 2005 in the impugned order, yet it should be construed that the impugned order of suspension has been passed in exercise of powers under Rule 9(1)(a) as also Rules 9(1)(c) of the Rules, 2005. In support of his above contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court passed on 18.12.2012 in W.P.(S) No. 7375 of 2012 Ed Ganauri Mistry vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, 2013 1 JLJR 282