Arunoday Pandit vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 13 July, 2011

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      W.P(S) No. 1675 of 2011
            Arunoday Pandit                                    ..... Petitioner
                                             Versus
            The State of Jharkhand & Others                    ..... Respondents
                                         -----
                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
                                         -----
            For the Petitioner             -   Mr. Prashant Pallav
            For the Respondents             -  Mr. J.C to G.P-IV
                                         -----

2/13.7.2011

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.8.10

whereby the petitioner was put under suspension. It has been submitted that the petitioner’s

suspension is bad and illegal as the petitioner was put under suspension on the allegation that

the petitioner was absconding in a criminal case instituted against him. The petitioner’s

suspension is, thus, under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code and no order under Rule 100 of

the Bihar Service Code has been passed by the concerned authority. In view thereof, the

continuation of the petitioner’s suspension is illegal.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner

was put under suspension in view of the pendency of departmental enquiry against him.

Charge sheet was issued and the enquiry is in progress. The petitioner was served with

second show cause notice and reply has been filed by the petitioner in March 2011. The

departmental proceeding is about to be concluded. Learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the petitioner’s contention that he was put under suspension under Rule 99 of

the Bihar Service Code is wholly baseless.

Considering the said submissions and the facts and materials on record, I find that the

petitioner was put under suspension, as a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.

The departmental proceeding is still pending. Second show-cause notice was issued to the

petitioner and he has filed his reply in March 2011. I, therefore, find no arbitrariness or

illegality in the impugned order of suspension.

However, since the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the second show-

cause, the respondents shall conclude the departmental enquiry expeditiously.

With the said observations / directions, this writ petition is dismissed.

      S.K                                                                (NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J)