KASHI NATH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Haemendra Prasad Singh for the State of Bihar.

(2.) The petitioner who earlier served as the Jail Superintendent in the Central Jail at Gava has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness and the validity of the order dated 22.1.2006. Annexure-2, whereunder the Inspector General, Prison, Bihar has placed him under suspension fixing his Headquarters in the Inspectorate at Patna on the charge of deritiction of duty as three dreaded prisoners managed to escape from the Central jail after digging a tunnel and that the petitioner failed to inform the Headquarters about the escape of three prisoners from Central Jail, Gaya.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said order as violative of Rule 9 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 as the said order has been passed by the I.G., Prison who is neither the Appointing Authority nor the Authority superior to the Appointing authority nor the Disciplinary authority nor an Authority authorised by general or special order to pass suspension order. According to learned Counsel subsequent approval of the suspension by the State Govt. under order dated 31.1.2066 Annexure-A to the counter affidavit shall not redeem the position. In support of his submission, he has relied on a decision in the case of Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan reported in paragraphs 25 to 27 Paragraph 27 of the decision reads as follows:- These principles of ratification, apparently do not have any application with regard to exercise of powers conferred under statutory provisions. The statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. It is ab initio void and cannot be ratified. He has further assailed the said order on the ground that while passing the suspension order, Annexure-2, the I.G., Prison did not consider the guidelines as innumerated by the State Government, itself under Circular dated 9.1.1953 and 4.4.1960 as contained in Annexures 3 and 4 as while passing the suspension order the I.G. did not even contemplate initiation of a departmental proceeding as also failed to consider as to whether it was absolutely necessary to place the petitioner under suspension.