OM PRAKASH SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, in all the writ petitions, have raised common grievance against their prolonged suspension for more than twelve years without any such provision in law. It has been submitted that the petitioners have been kept under suspension for more than a decade, though there is specific policy decision that after a period of suspension of more than two years, the department shall review the orders and obtain appropriate order from the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary according to the merit of the cases. The said specific circular was issued long back by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department by letter no.8537 dated 6th July, 1981. In spite of the said clear provision, the petitioners' long suspension has not been reviewed even once in twelve years and no order for revocation of their suspension has been obtained, as required by the said circular. It has been submitted that the petitioners have been kept under suspension on the allegation of pendency of the criminal trial in which there are 1035 prosecution witnesses, out of which only 500 witnesses have been examined over about 11 years. There is, thus, no justification for keeping the petitioners under suspension for indefinite period contrary to the said provision. The petitioners' suspension are, therefore, wholly arbitrary, unjust and illegal and the orders are liable to be quashed or alternatively their suspension are liable to be revoked by this Court.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Standing Counsel-II, assisted by learned J.C. to G.P.III, appearing on behalf of the State respondents contested the writ petitions. It has been submitted, inter alia, that the petitioners are accused in criminal cases arising out of the Fodder Scam, which was investigated by the C.B.I. The trial of those cases is in progress. The departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner by framing charges of misconduct, but the same have been kept in abeyance awaiting result of the criminal cases. Learned counsel, however, admitted that the circulars issued by the Government provide for review of the cases of suspension after two years and that there has been no such review so far of the suspension of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the respondents shall take up the cases of the petitioners and review the same in accordance with the Government circulars and the policy decision without further delay and appropriate decision shall be taken on their grievances.