RAMANAND PRASAD CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the office order, bearing Memo No. 4222 dated 23.6.2008, Annexure -1 to this application issued by the Director, Agriculture. Bihar, Patna, whereunder petitioner, who at the relevant time served as Inspector in the Weights & Measures Directorate in the Department of Agriculture, has been placed under suspension on the ground that complaints have been received against him that he is demanding bribe. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation that petitioner is demanding bribe is the figment of imagination of the authorities as no such complaint was ever received against the petitioner. Appreciating the aforesaid submission initially made by the counsel for the petitioner on 3.7.2008, this Court allowed the State counsel to seek instruction in the matter and file counter affidavit. A counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 2, the Director, Agriculture, Bihar, Patna, who is the author of the impugned suspension order, Annexure -1 as also Appointing/Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, has been filed stating therein that petitioner has been placed under suspension in compliance of the instructions of the Secretary of the Department issued on a Buff -sheet dated 23.6.2008, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit and it appears therefrom that a bald statement has been made thereunder that several complaints have been received against the petitioner that he State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation is demanding bribe, but in the Buff -sheet neither the name and address of the complainants.) nor the substance of the allegations have been indicated.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that in spite of specific direction of this Court to indicate the name and address of the complainant as also to produce the complaint filed against the petitioner, the authorities have chosen only to place the Buff -sheet issued by the Secretary of the Department directing the Director, Agriculture, Respondent No. 2 to place the petitioner under suspension, in the circumstances., according to the counsel for the petitioner, it should be taken that no complaint whatsoever was received against the petitioner in the Department/Directorate and the impugned suspension order is contrary to the instructions of the State Government contained in circular letter dated 24.6.2005 as contained in Annexure -4, which inter alia lays down procedure which is required to be observed when complaint is received against the Govt. servant. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Director being the Appointing/Controlling Officer ought to have considered the allegation against the petitioner on his own and ought not to have placed the petitioner under suspension on the dictates of the Secretary of the Department. In this connection, he has relied upon the celebrated judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 Supreme Court 16.