DILIP KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Assistant Engineer of Road Construction Department, has challenged the Notification dated 6th September, 1995 (Annexure -1), by which he has been placed under suspension.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the parent department of the petitioner is Road Construction Department of the State of Bihar. He was on deputation in one Bihar State Bridge Contruction Corporation and was posted at Ranchi. Certain allegations came to the notice of Lok Upkram Samittee of Bihar Legislative Assembly relating to collection of toll. The petitioner was posted as Project Engineer in the said Bridge Construction Corporation, under whose jurisdiction, the said toll used to be collected. The matter was reported by the Lok Upkram Samittee to the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, where in after one F.I.R. was lodged on 28th of July, 1995 in the Mufassil Thana at Chaibasa, bearing Muffasil P.S. Case No. 70/95, under Section 409/420, LP.C. The petitioner is an accused alongwith another in the said case. Thereafter, the Respondents -State, from its Road Constrction Department have come out with the impugned order of suspension dated 6th September, 1995 (Annexure -1). on the ground that F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner and such order has been passed under Rule 49(A)(1)(a) of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930.

(3.) THOUGH in the writ petition, various grounds have been mentioned to assail the order of suspension, but when the case was taken up, Mr. 8asudeo Prasad, Senior Advocate raised two grounds to assail the impugned order of suspension. They are stated hereunder : According to the counsel for the petitioner, under Rule 49 (A)(1)(b) of the aforesaid Rules, it is only if a case in respect to any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, a person can be suspended. It was contended that mere lodging of F.I.R. cannot be construed to be pendency of a 'case' with respect to any criminal offence. He relied on Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that if on a complaint case, a competent court of law, directs to make investigation and on that basis, if any enquiry is made and/or when trial remains pending before such court of law, only then it can be stated that a case of criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial. It was submitted that in the case of petitioner as no case with respect to any criminal offence is pending before any competent court of law, the petitioner cannot - be suspended on mere lodging of one F.I.R. The other argument is alternative one. it was contended that even if on lodging of one F.I.R., it is construed that a case with respect to any criminal offence is pending but till investigation is being made and/or enquiry is conducted and/or trial started, no person be placed under suspension under Rule 49(A)(1)(b) of the said Rules. It was submitted that the respondents have not stated that after lodging of F.I.R. against the petitioner the investigation and/or enquiry has started, and in absence of such investigation and/or enquiry, the petitioner cannot be suspended on mere lodging of one F.I.R.