ARUN KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9 -2 -1996 as contained in Annexure -1 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh whereby the petitioner has been suspended in purported exercise of powers under Rule 3(i)(ii)(iii) of the Bihar Subordinate Services (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules and further for a direction to the respondents to pay full salary to the petitioner since the date of suspension.

(2.) Brief fact of the case is that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Assistant Accountant District Treasury Office, Hazaribagh. During that period it came to the notice of the respondents that there had been withdrawal of huge amount from different treasuries of the district by the Animal Husbandry Department and as a result of which F.I.R. was lodged against various officers of the Animal Husbandry department and the Treasury Department. Because of the aforesaid fact the Director, Treasury, Bihar, Patna issued an order being No. 61 dated 6 -2 -1996 which was communicated by FAX to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh empowering him to suspend the officials whose names appeared as accused in the F.I.R. lodged in connection with defalcation and unauthorised withdrawal of money from the Treasury. Pursuant to that letter respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, by the impugned order, put the petitioner under suspension.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order of suspension as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel made three -fold submissions. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the Director is not authorised to delegate his power which is contrary to Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. Learned Counsel then submitted that even assuming that the delegation of power by the Director to the Deputy Commissioner was legal, the delegatee cannot exercise power beyond the area of delegation. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, the Director delegated his power to the Deputy Commissioner to suspend all those employees who are named accused in the F.I.R. Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and, therefore, the order of suspension against him is bad in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that exercise of power by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh under Rule 3(i)(ii)(iii) of the Rules amounts to non -application of mind inasmuch as neither any criminal case is pending nor a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that in any case the order of suspension cannot continue for more than two years without initiation of any departmental proceeding and the petitioner cannot be put under suspension for an indefinite period.