ANIL KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 7.12.2007 whereby and whereunder competent authority of the State Government has passed the order in purported exercise under Rule 9(1)(ka) Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules '). Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that impugned order of suspension was mala fide and based on non est materials. In this context he has stressed on the aspect that his suspension order for disobedience of the order of his superior officer is factually incorrect because he had given information to the police station well within time and as such he could not be held liable for the delay in instituting of the First Information Report. Such delay in recording of FIR according to him had taken place due to lapse/ negligence of local police Officer/Officer in -charge of the police station.

(3.) THE counsel for the State however opposing the prayer of the writ petitioner submitted there are sufficient materials to justify an order of suspension.