Satish Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard counsel for the parties.

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that certain developments has taken place which has been

brought on record by way of affidavit and the same may be accepted.

Let the affidavit be placed on board and kept on record.

Petitioner has knocked door of this Court challenging the order of suspension dated 16.11.2018, issued by the Director, Soil Conservation,

Jharkhand.

The brief facts of the case, as has been narrated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as a Field Investigator in the Department of

Statistics in Madhepura in the year 1984. Later on his service was put under the Agriculture Department as a Field Supervisor in Jamshedpur. Since

the year 2012, he is working under the respondent no. 4 as Field Supervisor under the Soil Conservation Department, Jharkhand. Being a field

supervisor, petitioner is responsible to supervise the work of development regarding renovation of government pond, private pond, percolation of tank,

deep boring etc. The main function of the Field Supervisor is to see that the work is being executed as per the estimate. Petitioner has no power of

drawing or disbursing the funds of the Government nor there is any charge of embezzlement or misappropriation of funds. Name of the petitioner was

proposed for transfer with other six persons by the Director, Soil Conservation to the Secretary, Agriculture who, in turn, sent it to the Minister

concerned for concurrence. The said proposal of transfer of six persons was accepted by the Agriculture Minister except the petitioner.

Thereafter, the Director, Soil Conservation, issued an Office Order No. 681/Ranchi, dated 16.11.2018, transferring and giving posting to the said six

persons. On the same date i.e. 16.11.2018, the respondent no. 3 issued the letter bearing Office Order No. 684/Ranchi, dated 16.11.2018, suspending

the petitioner with immediate effect citing that there is a complaint by the Minister concern without giving any details of the wrong done or misconduct

on part of the petitioner and petitioner’s Headquarter has been fixed in Hazaribagh, which falls in a different Division i.e. the North Chhotanagpur

Division. Petitioner is a Class- III employee and hence his Headquarter could have been fixed in the same Division i.e. South Chhotanagpur Division.

This Court, vide order dated 24.09.2019, issued a direction to the respondents, relevant portion of the same reads as under:

“In view of submission of the parties, I hereby direct the disciplinary authority to conclude the departmental proceeding initiated against

the petitioner, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if the departmental

proceeding is not concluded within the said period, the order of suspension of the petitioner shall automatically be revoked. The

respondents are also directed to look into the matter of enhancing the subsistence allowance of the petitioner, in accordance with law.â€​

Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned Sr. S.C.-I submits that in view of order and direction of this Court dated 24.09.2019, an office order dated 04.11.2019 has

been issued under the signature of Director, Soil Conservation, Ranchi and the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked in light of Rule 97(1) (b)

and Rule 97(4) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which has been brought on record vide Annexure-A to the affidavit filed on 11.12.2019.

Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondents have not whispered about the subsistence

allowance or the full salary for the period petitioner was put under suspension. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is a Class-III employee and has

been unnecessarily harassed. There is no complaint from any corner against the petitioner about his duty or conduct. Petitioner also does not have any

financial power. Learned counsel submits that though suspension has been revoked but a direction may be passed for payment of full salary for the

period petitioner was put under suspension.

Before going into merits of the case, it is relevant to quote herein Rule 97(1) (b) and Rule 97(4) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001.

“97.(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed, or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the

reinstatement shall consider and make specific order â€

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty, and

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

… … …

(4) In a case falling under Clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.

From plain reading of aforementioned Rule 97(1) (b) and Rule 97(4) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, I find the same specifically speaks about

the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty during the period of suspension.

From perusal of order dated 11.12.2019, I do not find that respondents have whispered anything about the salary for the period petitioner was under

suspension nor it has been mentioned that suspension has been revoked with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the respondents is not able to

satisfy this Court that as to why order has not been passed by the concerned respondent regarding the benefits that has accrued during the period of

suspension. Since suspension has been revoked on 04.11.2019, petitioner is entitled for the full salary for the period he was under suspension. It has

also been mentioned that the departmental proceeding has been completed and petitioner has been exonerated from the charges. In view of

exoneration from the charges, petitioner is entitled for the full salary and other benefits for the period he was put under suspension and should not be

harassed any further. Respondents are directed to release the difference amount for the period petitioner was under suspension within a period of

three weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, without any further delay.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

As a sequel of aforesaid, intervention application filed vide I.A. No. 6956 of 2019, stands dismissed.