1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order of suspension dated 06.01.2000, Annexure P-7, mainly on the ground that without assigning any reason the petitioner has been placed under suspension and no charge-sheet has been served pertaining to the charges on the basis of which the petitioner has been placed under suspension. Since the petitioner was suspended way back on 06.01.2000, the State Counsel was required to make a statement if after the impugned order of suspension, any charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner or not. Despite repeated adjournments, no reply has been filed and today a statement has been made by the standing counsel for the State conceding that the petitioner has not been served with any charge-sheet so far.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case. we find that the petitioner is being kept under suspension without initiating any inquiry against him and without serving any charge-sheet. During the course of arguments, learned State counsel stated that the State can keep its employees under suspension without informing him of the reasons and besides that certain criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner.
3. A perusal of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner sought quashment of the FIRs and by orders of this court filing of any chatlan in such cases has been stayed. Be that as it may, the impugned order refers to the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules refers to suspension. It provides two grounds for placing an employee under suspension firstly, where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; secondly, where a case againsl him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. The impugned order dated 06.01.2000, copy of which is Annexure P-7, does not refer to any of these two grounds if the suspension is for the purposes of contemplating inquiry against him or it is on the basis of the registration of the criminal case againsl him. The petitioner relies upon the government instructions dated 16,5.1978, copy of which is Annexure P-14, which refers to be government policy in respect of suspension of government employees. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the aforesaid instructions read as under:-
"3. Except in cases of rare urgency, an employee should not be suspended until a proper charge sheet has been served upon him and his explanation obtained and found unsatisfactory. When an employee is henceforth placed under suspension, the charge sheet should in any case be served on him within a period of three months. In case the charge sheet is not served within three months, he should be eligible to be reinstated. 4. The entire process of serving the charge sheet holding the enquiry and taking of decision with regard to the final action to be taken in the case should be completed within a period of one year from the date of suspension of the employee. In cases where a decision cannot be taken within a period of one year, the concerned employee should be eligible for reinstatement."
4. The fact that the impugned order of suspension Annexure P-7, does not indicate any reason and the Stale counsel has conceded that no charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner so far besides the orders of the High Court slaying filing of the challans against the "petitioner, the continuation of the petitioner under suspension becomes purposeless and against the rules.
5. In the circumstances, these is no option but to quash the impugned order of sus pension. Annexure P-7 This writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.01.2000, copy of which is Annexure P-7, is quashed, it shall however, be open for the respondents to take conscious decision in the matter in respect of proceedings against him in accordance with the rules Sd/- Swatanter Kumar, J.
Comments