SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2337 of 2003 is the appellant in this appeal. In that writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order placing him under suspension in view of his being an accused in six criminal cases which has attained notoriety as the Fodder Scam cases. The order of suspension shows that it was being issued under Rule 49 -A(1) of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The said rule empowers the Government to place a Government servant under suspension in a case where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated nor is pending, or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge took the view that his suspension was valid in terms of Rule 49(A)(1) of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and there was no justification for interference. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant relied on Annexure 10, marked in the writ petition, said to be a letter written by the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, suggesting that in cases where suspension has been in force for more than two years and the disciplinary proceeding has not been completed, the revocation of suspension may be considered in cases where no criminal charge has been made against the officer concerned. According to us, this communication cannot help the appellant for two reasons. First of all, he is being tried for crimes connected with the Animal Husbandry Scam and he is an accused in six cases and. the cases are still pending and he stands charged in them. Secondly, in the face of Rule 49 -A of the Rules, this communication cannot have efficacy in a case like the present. In other words, such a communication cannot override the Rule. We are, therefore, of the view that the communication of the year 1981 relied on by the appellant is of no avail to him.