NAGENDRA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order contained in memo. No. 04/Aa. 1 -26/2011 -170 dated 15.10.2013, whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension. It has been stated that the petitioner has been sought to be put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding on the charge of allowing one Ashok Bharti to complete the pending work and adjust the amount given to him as advance for construction of the school building in the year 2006. The petitioner is due to retire on 31st January, 2014 and only in order to malign him and obstruct payment of his retrial benefits, the petitioner has been illegally put under suspension in hot haste at the fag end of his service. The order of suspension has been issued by the Deputy Secretary who is neither appointing authority nor disciplinary authority. He has no jurisdiction to issue such order. The petitioner is a senior most Class -I officer in his department. His appointing authority is the State of Jharkhand. The order is violative of the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India read with Rules of Executive Business framed under Article 163 of the Constitution.

(2.) MR . Manoj Tandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that under Article 166 of the Constitution of India all executive action of the Government of the State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor and shall be authenticated in the manner as specified in the Rule to be made by the Governor. The impugned order of suspension has not been authenticated in the prescribed manner and the same is wholly illegal.

(3.) THE petitioner in the writ petition has specifically mentioned the said infirmity in the order in Paragraph Nos. 17 and 22 of the writ petition, but the same has not been controverted in the counter affidavit of the respondents.