ORDER
1. The petitioner has prayed for revocation of the order of suspension dated 4.11.1997. He has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.4.2000 by which the petitioner was informed that till finalization of the departmental proceedings the petitioner would continue to be under suspension.
2. The petitioner has also prayed for costs of Rs. 25,000/- for having put him in a state of prolonged suspension thereby causing harassment upon him.
3. From the facts as pleaded in the Writ Application, it is apparent that by an order dated 4.11.1997 the petitioner was put under suspension retrospectively with effect from 8,8.1997 on the ground of his having been sent to jail in relation to a case under Sections 498-A, 494, 380, 342, 320-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 1679 of 1998 (R). This was disposed off on 3.12.1998 with a direction that the District Establishment Committee will consider the question as to whether the suspension of the petitioner should continue or not within three (3) months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the Order.
5. Upon being released from custody and not getting any positive response from the respondents, the petitioner produced a copy of the order of the High Court through a letter dated 17.6.1999. Three months time expired on 17.9.1999 and the respondents not having complied with the operative portion of the order passed in CWJC No. 1679 of 1998 (R) to the effect that decision had to be taken by the District Establishment Committee within three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order, the petitioner therefore, filed a contempt application which was registered as MJC No. 165 of 2000 (R).
6. On 10.4.2000, the petitioner received a communication by which he was informed that the earlier inquiry report had been submitted incomplete and therefore, the inquiry officer would be submitting a complete report within forty five days before the District Establishment Committee and therefore, It had been decided that the petitioner would continue to be placed under suspension till finalization of the departmental proceedings. This is the other order which has been challenged by the petitioner and this is contained at Annexure 4.
7. The petitioner has submitted that even forty five days as contemplated in Annexure 4, lapsed on 25.5.2000 but the respondents did not send any letter in respect of their decision to him.
8. The petitioner has stated that he even filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih on 21.12.2000 but even thereafter nothing happened. In the mean time, MJC 165/2000 (R) which is contained at Annexure 6 was disposed off and the contempt application was also disposed off on the ground that the Order dated 10.4.2000 was sufficient compliance of the order of the High Court passed in CWJC No. 1679 of 1998 (R) and the petitioner, if he was not satisfied, could move the competent authority or a Court of law.
9. The petitioner has stated that after the aforesaid order had been passed, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 (the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih) but he was always threatened that he would be dismissed from service. The petitioner has also stated that he has been continuously on bail since 28.5.1999.
10. A counter affidavit in this case has been filed wherein it has been stated at paragraph 20 as follows :
“20. That with regard to the statement made in para 14 of the writ petition under reply it is submitted that the District Establishment Committee has decided to continue the suspension of the petitioner until the departmental proceeding is over.
Area Education Officer, Giridih was
made the Enquiry Officer and he was
asked to submit the Enquiry Report
shortly.
Enquiry Officer, Area Education Officer, Giridih has submitted his report. This report will be placed in the meeting of District Establishment Committee. Giridih, which is expected to be held within three months for the decision.”
11. Thus from what has been stated in the counter affidavit, it appears that the stand of the deponent is that the Area Education Officer, Giridih had already submitted his report and the report was to be placed before the District Establishment Committee, Giridih in their meeting which was expected to be held within three months.
12. The counter affidavit referred to above was filed in this Court on 13.5.2002. When this case was called out the period of three months had already lapsed on 13.8.2002. The learned counsel for the State respondents, upon being asked did not submit anything beyond whatever that was already stated in the counter affidavit and therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed on the basis of the pleadings made in the Writ Petition as also in the counter affidavit.
13. The admitted case of the parties therefore and as is apparent is that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 4.11.1997. It is also the admitted case of the parties that on 10.4.2000, the petitioner was intimated that he would continue to be placed under suspension till conclusion of the departmental proceedings. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the respondents firstly intimated to the petitioner by their letter dated 10.4.2000 that the complete report would be placed before the Establishment Committee within forty five days and thereafter when forty five days lapsed and nothing happened, a counter affidavit was filed in this Court on 13.5.2002 wherein It was stated that the report would be placed before the meeting within three months. That period has also now lapsed.
14. The petitioner has been put under suspension on 4.11.1997. The attitude of the respondents in keeping him in a state of suspension since 1997 Is not appreciated by this Court specially on account of the fact that even by order dated 10.4.2000, the respondents had given a clear indication that the report would be placed before a Committee within forty five days and when forty five days lapsed, they
filed a counter affidavit on 13.5.2002 stating that the report would be placed in the meeting of the said Committee which was expected to be held within three months. Even that period has now lapsed.
15. Unfortunately, the order of suspension was not interfered with by this Court in the first Writ Petition te.. CWJC No. 1679 of 1998 (R). It was disposed off only with a direction that the District Establishment Committee will consider the question as to whether the petitioner’s suspension would continue or not and the said decision was to be taken by the Committee within three months. When this three months’ period lapsed and when a contempt application was filed, the same was also disposed off on the ground that the order dated 10.4.2000, (by which the respondents had given a statement that within forty five days the report would be placed before a Committee) was a sufficient compliance.
16. This Court is not an LPA Court sitting in appeal over the first order of the Writ Court and therefore, although the action of the respondents is deprecated on account of the fact that they have been giving false assurances, this Court at the same time is unable to interfere with the order of suspension. But however, in, the ends of justice, this Court directs that for such an action on the part of the respondents the petitioner is entitled to costs. The respondents are therefore held liable to pay to the petitioner costs amounting to Rs. 25,000/- for having put him into a state of suspended animation right from the year 1997 without taking any decision on the basis of the final report.
17. However, so far as the other aspect relating to the order of suspension is concerned and for the reasons stated above, this Court, without interfering at this stage, directs the concerned respondents to conclude the entire matter within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the order of suspension will stand automatically revoked and in that event, the petitioner would stand restored to his original position with all consequential benefits.
18. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
19. There shall, however, be no order
as to costs.