The main legal point established is that under Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, a government servant can be suspended when under detention for a period exceeding forty-eight hours.

JUDGMENT :

P.C. Naik, J. - Raising a short but interesting question, the petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order (Annexure-6) whereby he has again been placed under suspension, though after revocation of an earlier suspension order he was permitted to resume duties.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant in the Berhampur University. On 8.7.1989, he was suspended pending drawal of departmental proceedings. Charges were framed and after due inquiry, he was found to be guilty of the charge of misappropriation. The period of suspension was treated as such and four increments were stopped with cumulative effect. It was further directed that a sum of Rs. 1,03,178/-with 6?% interest thereon shall be recovered from the petitioner in 242 consecutive monthly installments. However, in terms of the order, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 9.7.1991. Appeal preferred by him before the Chancellor was rejected. Subsequently on 30.12.1991, an FIR was lodged by the Registrar of the University basing whereupon a case u/s 409, IPC was registered against the petitioner. He was arrested and remained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. Undisputedly, G.R.Case No. 1143 of 1991 is pending against him in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. In view of the fact that the petitioner was under detention beyond the period of forty-eight hours, he was placed under suspension with effect from 1.3.1993 pending disposal of the aforesaid G.R.Case and it is this order which is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner had already been placed under suspension and pending finalisation of the departmental proceedings which were concluded, the authorities were not justified in placing him under suspension for the second time for the self-same charge, as, according to the learned counsel, the subject-matter of the charge basing whereupon criminal proceedings are pending against him and that of the charge against him in the inquiry are the same misappropriation of public funds. The contention, though attractive, cannot be accepted for the reasons to follow.

4. A reference may be made to Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (in short, "C.C.A. Rules") which govern the field, for, it is fairly accepted, the same have been adopted by the University by virtue of Statute 2 of 1999. Relevant extract of the C.C.A. Rules may be quoted :

"12. Suspension - (I) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any authority empowered by the Governor or the appointing authority in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension -

(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 or trial.

(2) A Government servant who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the appointing authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders.

(3) and (4) xx xx xx

(5) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate."

The aforesaid rule contemplates suspension of an employee in different contingencies - contemplation of departmental proceeding or pendency thereof, during investigation or trial of a criminal offence, or detention in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours.

5. Admittedly, the present suspension is not under Sub-rule (1) nor has the petitioner been suspended pending drawal of a departmental proceeding nor is it because of the pendency of a cr