The court emphasized that suspension with retrospective effect and the continuation of suspension without justifiable grounds were impermissible, and the departmental proceeding should not continue unduly long without cogent and justifiable grounds.

Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order of retrospective suspension as contained in memo No.336 dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure-4) issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand on the ground of sanction of prosecution against the petitioner in a case under Section 19 (1) B and 7/13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of 2 Corruption Act, 1988 and the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no.2 for suitable post as per seniority. The Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the impugned resolution dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-5) by which a decision has been taken to initiate the departmental proceeding under Rule 17 and 14 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 upon the charges framed in Prapatra “K” as contained in letter no.89 dated 17.02.2016 of the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara for various irregularities committed by the petitioner as District Education Officer, Jamtara and for quashing the charges under Prapatra “K” against the petitioner vide letter dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure-7) by Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara to the Deputy Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

2. The brief facts as averred in the writ application, is that the petitioner being a member of the State Education Service, Class-I and while he was posted as District Education Officer, Jamtara and was holding the additional charge of Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE), Dumka Division, Dumka. The petitioner was falsely implicated in Vigilance P.S. Case No.38/2015 under section 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequent upon a raid, the petitioner was taken into custody. The petitioner was placed under deemed suspension under Rule 99 of the Service Code with effect from 17.07.2012. After being enlarged on bail, the petitioner submitted joining on 23.11.2015 before the Director, Secondary Education. But to the utter surprise vide notification contained in Memo No.336 dated 22.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand once again placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 100 of the Service Code with retrospective effect with effect from 22.11.2015 on the ground of sanction of prosecution. Thereafter, vide departmental resolution a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17 and 14 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 as contained in memo dated 13.06.2016 has been issued vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner sought information under R.T.I. Act relating to similarly situated officers of the School Education and Literacy Department who have been implicated in vigilance case under provisions of Prevention and Corruption Act and the information as sought for by the petitioner has been provided by the Assistant Director Cum Public Information Officer, Primary Education as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application. Alongwith Departmental resolution dated 13.06.2016 charges drawn in Prapatra ”K” was supplied to the petitioner which has been drawn by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on 17.02.2016 i.e. four months prior to initiation of departmental proceeding as per Annexure-7 to the writ application. In the vigilance case, the charge sheet has already been filed against the petitioner by way of submission of final form before the Special Judge Vigilance on 10.09.2015 and therefore there is no occasion for the petitioner to tamper with any of the records or exercise undue influence over the witnesses of the case. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted series of representations before the respondent authorities for revocation of suspension vide Annexure-13 to the writ appli