The currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months without serving the charge-sheet and providing reasoned orders for extension, as established by legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of Memo No.4/Ma.Sa./Ra. Aarop/423/2021/2278, Ranchi dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure-4), whereby and whereunder in purported exercise of powers under Rule 9 (1) (ka) & (ga) of Jharkhand Government Servant’s (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016, the petitioner has been put under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry and further has been directed to report at South Chhotanagpur Divisional Commissioner, Ranchi.

2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined the services in the State of Jharkhand as Child Development Officer in the year, 2000 and she was posted at various districts in the State of Jharkhand during the service career and lastly she was posted as District Social Welfare Officer, Ranchi w.e.f. 28.01.2021. She remained to discharge her duties to the full satisfaction of her superiors and with utmost sincerity. It is specific case of the petitioner that while she was posted in Ranchi, she was put under suspension on 03.12.2021 in contemplation of the Departmental Proceeding. Aggrieved by the said order of suspension dated 03.12.2021, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the extent that order of suspension be declared bad in law on the ground that even the currency of the suspension order should not exceed three months without issuance of show cause notice or any charge-sheet though the same has been done in the instant case but no reasons have been assigned for extension of currency of suspension beyond three months. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. He further submits that petitioner a lady is suffering from great hardship due to the order of suspension and extension of currency of suspension order without assigning any reasons.

4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed.

5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that on the direction of this Hon’ble Court he has already filed supplementary counter-affidavit and stated that after putting the petitioner under suspension, the Department through Resolution No. 135 dated 20.01.2022 initiated the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and the memo of charges has also been served to the petitioner. He further submits that he is conscious of the law that reasons were to be assigned for extension of currency of the suspension, but in the supplementary counter-affidavit, the same has not been mentioned and submits that if further time is granted to him, he will file an additional counter-affidavit.

6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties on 14.03.2022, this Court after hearing the parties orally directed the respondents to file a specific reply to the issues “as to whether departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated or not and if initiated then what is the stage of the proceeding and whether before expiry of three months period from the date of suspension i.e. 03.12.2021, memo of charge has been served to the petitioner or not and if not then whether the department through fresh order by assigning reasons continued the suspension of the petitioner or not”

7. Though the reply has been filed by way of supplementary counter-affidavit, but very cleverly the reasons have not been assigned for extension of currency of suspension order. It is settled principles of law that for putting an employee under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding, even a show cause notice is not required, but for extension of currency of suspension, the charge-sheet must be served as well as reasons have to be assigned. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in