SATYENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Binod Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Anwar Karim learned A.C. to G.P.10 for the State.

(2.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of suspension bearing Memo No.600 dated 18.2.2014 whereby on institution of the Vigilance Case No.036 of 2013 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that the petitioner has been put under suspension under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").

(3.) Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in reference to a judgment and order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C.No.5477 of 2016 (Ishwar Dayal Vs. the State of Bihar) has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the opinion expressed by this Court. He submits that in the present case, the investigation is still continuing awaiting submission of chargesheet. He submits that in term of the Circular of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 3.7.1986, in such of the cases of Government Servant placing suspension on account of criminal prosecution, it is provided that in case cognizance has not been taken of the offences of the criminal office faced by the Government servant, then the suspension order be revoked. The submission of Mr. Binod Kumar is that even in the present case, the police case was registered on 11.7.2013 and the petitioner was put on suspension on 18.2.2014 in exercise of powers vested under rule 9(1)(c) of "the Rules" and although the departmental proceeding has also been alongside initiated against the petitioner but since the suspension order is resting only on the institution of the criminal case hence the case of the petitioner would be covered by the circular dated 3.7.1986 as explained in the judgment passed by this court in the case of Ishwar Dayal.