BACHHITER SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short point is involved for consideration in this case. The petitioner is a Peon working in the Office of Deputy Director, J&K Funds Organization, Jammu. At the relevant time it is alleged that the he was performing the duties of a Chowkidar. The impugned communication No. DDFJ/82 -84 dated 5 -4 -1995 was sent by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 whereby respondent No. 3 was informed that the petitioner is deemed to have been placed under suspension W.E.F. 17 -2 -1995 in terms of Rule 31(2) of the J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956. For ready reference, the text of this communication is reproduced as under: - "Since Sh. Bachiter Singh, Orderly is deemed to have been placed under suspension W.E.F. 17 -2 -95 with ref. to Rule 31(2) of Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1956, you are advised to pay subsistence allowance to the official as admissible under rules with an intimation to this office."

(2.) THE petitionerâ„¢s case is if the petitioner was in custody for a period longer than 48 hours, as is contemplated under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 31 of 1956 Rules, the Authority competent as prescribed under Rule 31 was required to pass a formal order placing the petitioner under suspension because of the stipulations contained in Rule 31 itself. Even though, according to Mr. Abhinav Sharma. the expression used in Sub Rule (2) is that the petitioner should be deemed to have been suspended by the competent Authority, yet a formal order placing him under suspension was required to be passed by the appointing Authority. Mr. R.N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has controverted this submission of Mr. A. Sharma, According to Mr. R.N. Sharma, the fact that a Govt. servant has been in custody for a period longer than 48 hours by itself should ipso facto mean that he is deemed to have been placed under suspension and that the issuance or passing of a formal order to this effect is not required.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the opinion that the submission made by Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner deserves to be accepted. For ready reference, Sub Rule(2) of Rule 31 of 1956 Rules is reproduced hereunder: - " A Government servant who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended by the appointing authority under this rule."