The interpretation of the phrase 'criminal charge is pending' in the context of suspension and the legal principles regarding suspension as a preventive measure and consideration of public interest.

Sujoy Paul, J.

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the suspension orders dated 27-2-2015 (Annexure P/7).

2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the petitioners are employees of respondent No. 2/M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited (Corporation). The Corporation, by impugned order dated 27-2-2015 placed the petitioners under suspension. In the suspension order it is stated that petitioners demanded bribe for payment of vehicle bill of the complainant. The petitioners were caught red-handed by Special Police Establishment of Lokayukta Organization. A criminal case under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is registered against the petitioners on 24-7-2013. The registration number of criminal case is 88/13. It is further stated in the suspension order that challan has already been filed before the Special Court on 18-2-2015. Thus, by invoking Clause-54(1) of M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited (Service and Conduct Rule) (Rules), the petitioners are placed under suspension.

3. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners criticized this order and contended that a plain reading of Clause-54 makes it clear that it is only an enabling provision. Employees can be placed under suspension provided a criminal charge is pending against the employee. It is urged that as per Clause-54 the words “criminal charge is pending” must be treated as “framing of charge” as per the provision of Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted that in the present case the trial would be “warrant trial” as per section 240 of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence the aforesaid words must be understood as “framing of charge” in a criminal case. Secondly, it is urged that the petitioners are placed under suspension without independent application of mind. They were suspended because of the letters issued by the Lokayukta Organization. To bolster this submission, attention is drawn on letters dated 19-2-2015 (Annexure P/4) and 24-2-2015 (Annexure P/5). Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on certain note-sheets which are obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and filed with the rejoinder. By taking this court to the said note-sheets, it is argued that the petitioners are placed under suspension on the basis of Rule 9(1)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as ‘CCA Rules’). It is further submitted that CCA Rules are differently worded. As per Rule 9(1) (b) (first proviso) a Government servant shall be invariably placed under suspension when challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him. It is further submitted that in the present case Clause-54 is an enabling provision and there is no element of compulsion in that clause to place the employees under suspension. It is urged that since in Clause-54 of the Rules, the words “criminal charge is pending” is not defined, the relevant provision of CCA Rules i.e. Rule 9 may be seen in this regard. Rule 9 talks about filing of challan for a criminal offence.

4. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the Corporation contends that aforesaid two letters were written by Lokayukta Organization to the Corporation but the said letters were not the reason for placing the petitioners under suspension. By placing reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in W. P. No. 438/15 (Ashok Mishra v. State of M.P.), it is submitted that the Lokayukta Organization in its duty can apprise the department about the legal position. Such reminders in relation to performance of duty of the employer, by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be a pressure or threat created by the Lokayukta Organization. Arguments are also advanced by Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the Lokayukta Organization and Shri Lalit Joglekar, Panel Lawyer for the State. It is common ground taken by the respondents that in view of the