AMITAVA MUKHERJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Amitava Mukherjee, Director Telecommunication, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur, who has been put under suspension vide order dated 29. 9. 1988 (Annexure-1), a corrigendum of which has been issued on 30. 9. 1988 vide Annexure 2. The suspension was ordered on account of a criminal case registered against him bearing FIR No. 70/88 for the offences under ss. 120 (b), 420, 460, 468, 470, 471, 477 (A), 489 of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 5 (1) (d) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are as under -

(3.) MR. B. P. Aggarwal, the learned Advocate General has submitted that although it is true that very long time has been taken in completing the investigation and a high ranking Officer was kept under suspension for the long period of five years for irregular purchases amounting to Rs. 20-21 lacs but he submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the charges which were levelled against the petitioner and further looking to the fact that a challan has been filed, the petitioner's suspension should not be revoked The allegation of the malafides which has been made against the petitioner for making these purchases is that his brother-in-law one MR. Robin Chatterjee and M/s United Electronics. M/s Classic Electronics is owned by Shri Suman Chatterjee is an employee of M/s Classic Electronic and M/s United Electronics is owned by Shri Sanjeev Mudgal. His brother-in-law was an employee of these firms. It was a case of making purchases by inviting tenders and examination and approval of samples by the Committee as submitted by MR. Singhi, At this stage, I would not like to express any opinion about the merits of the charge because that may adversely effect the trial which is expected to take place against the petitioner but this much has been admitted by the learned Advocate General also that the trial would take time and consequently, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that keeping the petitioner under suspension appears to be unjust and unreasonable specially because even after the expiry of five years, no departmental enquiry has been instituted against the petitioner and even the trial is at the very initial stage because only a charge-sheet has been filed and even charges have not been framed against the petitioner. Suspension cannot be utilized as a measure of punishment. It should usually be made to facilitate the faire enquiry or investigation and cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to harass a Govt. Servant or to punish him for his acts of indiscretion if at all it may prove out to be.