SAILENDRA KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner was taken into custody while being caught red handed allegedly on 16/12/2016 accepting a bribe of Rs.1.00 lakh by the Anti-Corruption Bureau during the period of his posting as Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division-I, Chakradharpur. Pursuant to the order of bail dtd. 28/4/2017 passed in B.A. No.2957 of 2017 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court he was released from custody on 15/7/2017. Sanction for prosecution was issued vide order bearing memo no.22 dtd. 9/6/2017 (Annexure-4) by the Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand. He submitted his joining on being released through application dtd. 17/7/2017 before the Joint Secretary of the Department (Annexure-5). Petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 100 of the Jharkhand Service Code by the impugned order bearing memo no. 4703 dtd. 6/11/2017 issued by the respondent Department (Annexure-6) with retrospective effect from 17/7/2017. This aggrieved the petitioner to approach this Court in the present writ petition. Apart from the above he sought increase of subsistence allowance to 75% in terms of Rule 96 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 10(1) of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 2016 as also Circular No.737 dtd. 27/3/2018 issued by the Planning cum Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner asked for posting on a suitable post as per the seniority and also for a direction upon the respondent no.7 Accountant General, Jharkhand for issuance of correct pay slip after inclusion of transport allowance and house rent allowance w.e.f. 1/4/2018. Now the order of suspension has been revoked as per letter no.4469 dtd. 23/10/2018 issued by the respondent Department with immediate effect (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit of the State).

(3.) Three prayers of the petitioner have been admittedly redressed during pendency of the writ petition. Petitioner has been given a suitable posting on deputation in the Urban Department on revocation of his suspension. Pay slip has also been issued by the Accountant General office. The only question which survives for determination is whether part of the impugned order placing the petitioner on suspension with retrospective date after his release is proper in the eye of law. This issue is no longer res- integra in view of the ratio rendered by the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Bachcho Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1983 PLJR 561, paragraph-9 whereof the question has been answered. The learned Division Bench took note of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No.1861/1980 therein and observed that such a power must be derived through a statutory rule. Rule 100 reads as under :-