AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at some detail, perused the petition, the Annexures as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure-6, an order of suspension dated 25.8.1990 passed under Rule 49-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ''Appeal Rules'').
The main thrust of arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are three-fold:
(a) in view of Section 9-A of the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), he cannot be removed from the post of Secretary unless he commits an act envisaged u/s 1-A(2):
(b) the contemplated departmental enquiry into the charges has no merit; and
(c) the order of suspension, Annexure-6 dated 25.8.1990, relates to a matter as remote as 1986 and per se his suspension is bad.
From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it appears that some complaints against the petitioner were under investigation including the charges for which he has been suspended, before the Lok Ayukata and the Lok Ayukta by his order dated 21st June, 1990 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2) found prima facie, case against the petitioner of the charges for which departmental proceeding is sought to be initiated against the petitioner.
We do not find force in any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. So far as 1st point is concerned. Section 9-A does not repeal the Appeal Rules which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India nor Section 9-A anywhere says that it is "notwithstanding any other provision of law." "Further by virtue of appointment as a Secretary u/s 9-A, prior contumacy of a person so appointed as a Secretary is not automatically washed away. The order that is impugned before us is an order of suspension and therefore, not covered u/s 9-A of the Act as well.
Coming to the question that the State Government woke up too late in the day to start a departmental proceeding with respect to a matter of the year 1986, we want simply to observe that Lok Ayukta concluded its enquiry only two months before and recommended for starting a proceeding against the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government woke up too late in the day or it was stale and dead issue.... It was very much under the active consideration of the Lok Ayukta. So far as the merit is concerned, it is not the forum the petitioner is required to demonstrate his innocence. There may or may not be substance in what the learned Counsel sought to submit before us as to innocence of his client; but these are all matters which can be looked into by the authority, who will be conducting enquiry. We express no opinion on the merit of the charges levelled against the petitioner.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of suspension. The departmental enquiry should bs expeditiously disposed of.
This writ prtition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.