Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya And Kishore Kumar Prasad, JJ.
SUMAN ROY CHOWDHURY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. S. T. 400 Of 2006
Decided On : 12/22/2006
SUSPENSION - STAY OF OPERATION OF ORDER - SECTION 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT - RULE 7 (3) OF WBSF (C,CANDA) RULES, 1971 - EMPLOYEE UNDER CUSTODY OR SUFFERING SENTENCE - EMPLOYEE RELEASED ON BAIL - NO JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING UNDER SUSPENSION - ORDER OF SUSPENSION UNDER RULE 7 (3) IS ILLEGAL - TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, was arrested on July 18, 2005, in a criminal case under sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code. He was released on bail on August 24, 2005, and rejoined duty on August 25, 2005. On October 14, 2005, he was served with an order of suspension under Rule 7 (3) of the WBSF (C,canda) Rules, 1971, from July 28, 2005, the date of detention under police custody. The petitioner challenged the order before the State Administrative Tribunal, which admitted the application but refused to grant an interim order of stay of operation of the order of suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of suspension under Rule 7 (3) was illegal and that the Tribunal should have stayed the operation of the order. The court found that Rule 7 (3) has no application to a case where the Government servant is already released on bail. The court also held that the employer was entitled to consider the question of keeping the petitioner under suspension under Rule 7 (2), which gives power to the employer to consider whether, notwithstanding the fact that the Government servant is already released on bail, he should be nevertheless placed under suspension during the pendency of investigation or trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant an interim order of stay of operation of the order of suspension issued under Rule 7 (3) of the rules? 2. Whether the employer was entitled to consider the question of keeping the petitioner under suspension under Rule 7 (2) of the rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 7 (3) has no application to a case where the Government servant is already released on bail. 2. The employer was entitled to consider the question of keeping the petitioner under suspension under Rule 7 (2), which gives power to the employer to consider whether, notwithstanding the fact that the Government servant is already released on bail, he should be nevertheless placed under suspension during the pendency of investigation or trial.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and stayed the operation of the order of suspension. The court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible and directed the respondent to file objection before the Tribunal positively within a fortnight after reopening.
( 1 ) THIS writ application under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instacne of an applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and is directed against an order dated January, 2005 passed by the Tribunal by which the said tribunal admitted the application filed by the writ petitioner but refused to grant ad interim order of stay of operation of the order impugned in the said application.
( 2 ) THE writ petitioner is a Government employee. On the basis of allegation of his wife against him and his mother, a criminal case under section 498a/406 of the Indian Penal Code was started against them and consequently, he was arrested on July 18, 2005. Ultimately, he was released on bail on August 24, 2005. As the writ petitioner was in judicial custody, he was absent from duty during the said period. After being released on bail, he joined his duty on August 25, 2005 and filed an application for grant of earned leave for the aforesaid period.
( 3 ) LONG thereafter, on October 14, 2005, he was served with an order of suspension vide the Memo No. 3050 (7)/candf by which he was informed that he was placed under suspension under Rule 7 (3) of WBSF (C,canda) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) from July 28, 2005, the date of detention under police custody in connection with the Jadavpur Police Station case No. 281 under sections 498a/406 of the Indian Penal Code as reported by the Inspector-in-charge of the Jadavpur Police Station vide Memo No. 4870/05 dated September 30, 2005.
( 4 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ petitioner filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the State Administrative tribunal and prayed for an interim order staying the operation of the order of suspension. As indicated above, the Tribunal although admitted the said application, refused to grant any interim order.
( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up before us with this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
( 6 ) MRS. Sengupta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has laboriously contended before us that the learned Tribunal erred in law in refusing to pass any interim order in favour of her client notwithstanding the fact that the order of suspension impugned in the application before the Tribunal was on the face of it illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 7 (3) of the concerned rules. Mrs. Sengupta contends that once her client was released on bail by the competent Court, there was no justification of keeping him under suspension by taking aid of Rule 7 (3 ). According to Mrs. Sengupta Rule 7 (3) has application only in a case where an employee is under custody or suffering sentence. In the case before us, mrs. Sengupta contends, the writ petitioner having already been released on bail and having joined the service in the month of October, 2005, there was no justification for invoking Rule 7 (3 ). She, therefore, contends that the Tribunal in the fact of the present case ought to have stayed the operation of the order of suspension purportedly issued under Rule 7 (3 ). Mrs. Sengupta further contends that although the application filed by her client before the tribunal was entertained in the month of January, 2005, till date, the said application has not been heard and at the same time, the State-respondent even did not care to file objection to the application filed by her client. She, therefore, prays for setting aside the order impugned in this application and permitting her client to join service subject to the final decision in the pending criminal case.
( 7 ) MR. Srimani, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has, however, opposed the aforesaid contentions advanced by Mrs. Sengupta and has contended that the writ petitioner having been involved in a criminal case involving offence against a woman and the society, his cl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
