HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No.112 of 2010
Bharat Ram Sahu
...Petitioners
Vs
State of Chhattisgarh and others
...Respondents! Mr. T. K. Tiwari, counsel for the appellant
^ Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for respondent no.1
Honble Shri I.M. Quddusi,Honble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra,JJ
Dated:29/04/2010
: Judgment
Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh
High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006
ORAL ORDER
(29.04.2010)
Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J
1. Heard.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned
order dated 12.04.2010 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1562/2010 dismissing
the said writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ
appellant was allegedly caught red handed by the
vigilance team while taking bribe. Consequently
an order for suspension was passed on 14.07.2008
suspending him from the post of Patwari by order
of Collector (Land Records), Durg. In that order
it was mentioned that on 25.06.2008 the writ
appellant caught red handed while taking bribe of
Rs.1500/- and this act is contrary to Rule 3 of
the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965 and as such he was placed under suspension
with immediate effect. Thereafter on 03.02.2009,
the suspension order was revoked.
4. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet
was filed against the writ appellant. Consequent
to which, he was placed under suspension again by
order dated 23rd March, 2010. A special case was
registered as 02/2010 against the petitioner.
5. Rule 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966
deals with suspension. It provides that the
appointing authority or any authority to which it
is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or
any other authority empowered in that behalf by
the Governor, by general or special order, may
place a Government servant under suspension in the
following circumstances :
(a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him
is contemplated or is pending; or
(b) Where a case against him in respect of any
criminal offence is under investigation,
inquiry or trial :
Further, there are two provisos. According to the
first proviso, a Government Servant shall
invariably be placed under suspension when a
challan for a criminal offence involving
corruption or other moral turpitude is filed
against him.
6. Learned counsel for the writ appellant raises the
contention that once the suspension order was
passed and revoked, the order of re-suspension
could not have been passed and the same is not
sustainable in the eye of law as the order of
revocation cannot be reviewed.
7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes
the appeal and submits that there is no illegality
in the impugned second order of suspension. He
placed reliance on the decision of M.P. High Court
(Gwalior Bench) in Letters Patent Appeal
No.202/1999 (Chandra Pal Singh Pundhir -vs. M.P.
Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and others)
reported in 2002 (4) M.P.H.T. 213 (DB) which was
filed against the order of learned Single Judge in
the writ petition, in which the second order of
suspension was under challenge. The learned
single judge of M.P. High Court has observed that
considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme
Court in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Pa;rishad
Vs. Rajiv Rajan reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC
483, the order passed by the Board, suspending the
petitioner again appears to be proper and there is
no reason to interfere with the order of the
suspension passed by the Board. Similar contention
was raised in LPA that the second suspension order
amounts to review. Referring to first proviso to
Clause (1) of Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules in the said case i.e., Chandrapal Singh
Pundhir (supra), the Division Bench of M.P. High
Court observed that the second suspension order
was passed by the Chairman of the Board on
pendency of Criminal Case No.2690/1998 against the
petitioner and in the second order of suspension,
it was specifically mentioned that looking to the
nature of criminal case, the second suspension
order is passed. Therefore, the Division Bench
opined that it is not a review of the first
suspension order and further in case of U.P. Rajya
Utpadan Mandi Parishad Vs. Rajiv Rajan (supra), it
has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court that
there is no restriction on the authority to pass a
suspension order for the second time.
8. We have perused the first suspension order which
was not passed on the basis of any investigation
or trial but was passed on the allegation that
his act was contrary to Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and the said
suspension on that ground was revoked. But the
impugned order of suspension has been passed on
submission of the charge-sheet against the writ
appellant in the criminal court which is
permissible in view of first proviso to Clause (1)
of Rule 9 of CCA Rules that on submission of
Challan for a criminal offence in the Court
involving corruption or other moral turpitude the
Government servant shall invariably be placed
under suspension and therefore, it cannot be
termed as Review or a second order. In fact under
that provision the impugned order was the first
order of suspension.
9. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case
for interference in the impugned order passed by
the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is,
therefore, misconceived and is dismissed at the
admission stage.
10. However, this will not debar the petitioner from
filing an appeal if the impugned order of
suspension is appealable. No cost.
JUDGE JUDGE