PRAMOD KUMAR SAHAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for seeking the writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.2.2008 passed by respondent No. 3, by which, petitioner has been suspended while he was posted as Employment Officer, Madhubani, Bihar for the vague allegation of withdrawal of Salary of Rs. 15,377/- for non-sanctioned leave.

(2.) In substance, the petitioner has aggrieved by the Suspension Order dated 6.3.2008 passed by the respondent authority. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only point, which was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State of Jharkhand has issued a circular in which a Departmental Enquiry should be concluded within a period of 90 days. The Enquiry has not been concluded within 90 days and as such, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in this petition for revocation of the suspension order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled principle of law while considering the representation of the employee regarding the suspension, there is no doubt the authority must kept in mind the guideline issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes a representation with respect to his suspension, the appropriate authority must considered the same having regard to the exigencies of the Administration. The same guidelines issued as an executive order, however, it does not confer upon the Government Employee a legally enforceable right. The Executive instructions are in the nature of guideline, though, it did not have any statutory force. This has been held in the catena of decisions of the Hon "â„¢ble Apex Court.