1. Heard M.K. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, AC to AAG-III appearing on behalf of
the respondent State.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising
due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been
heard on merit.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 01.07.2019 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
4. Mr. M.K. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of Jharkhand Co-operative Service, who was
appointed in the Basic Grade of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 19.11.2008. The petitioner was posted as Managing Director of
Singhbhum Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Chaibasa for the period between 05.07.2016 to 31.03.2017. The petitioner was placed under
suspension vide Memo No.1142 dated 01.07.2019. By the order of suspension, the service of the petitioner was placed under suspension in
contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner after 105 days of placing his service under suspension. The
petitioner's service has been placed under suspension in terms of enquiry report submitted vide letter no.1380 dated 03.05.2019. The said enquiry
report was not served upon the petitioner. The petitioner requested the through R.T.I. to furnish a copy of the said enquiry report. The same was
served upon the petitioner on 13.09.2019. A complaint was made against the petitioner by one Vishal Kumar and one Anamul Haque regarding
irregularities being committed in the various Co-operative Banks in the State of Jharkhand including the Singhbhum Central Co-operative Bank
Limited, Chaibasa. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Section 34 and 35 of the Jharkhand Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 confers
powers upon the Registrar to initiate an enquiry in the affairs of the Cooperative Society on his own or on the application of the majority of the
Managing Committee or of not less than 1/3rd of the members. No opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. Mr. Roy, the learned
counsel submits that the petitioner was suspended on 01.07.2019. He submits that thereafter the enquiry proceeding has not been completed as yet.
Mr. Roy, the learned counsel submits that in view of resolution, within 105 days the suspension was required to be revoked, however, in the present
case, more than 105 days elapsed and the enquiry of has not been completed as yet. He submits that the petitioner is still in service. He further
submits that the petitioner is ready to face the enquiry but in view of the well settled provision of law that the suspension cannot be allowed to prolong
for a long period, he submits that in that view of the matter, the suspension order is required to be revoked by the Court.
5. Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, AC to AAG-III, the learned State counsel submits that it is admitted that the enquiry has not been completed as yet. He
refers to Rule 9(6)(C) of Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 and submits that the authority is having the
power to pass appropriate order on the point of suspension if the enquiry is not completed, the authority can extend the suspension period. He submits
that the representation is there and the authority can take decision in the light of Rule 9(6)C).
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court finds that admittedly the petitioner was suspended on 01.07.2019. It
is also an admitted fact that the enquiry has not been completed as yet. In view of the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Department
dated 26.12.2012, the enquiry needs to be completed within 105 days. The representation is already there and in view of the submission of Mr. Ashish
Kumar Thakur, the learned State counsel Rule 96 (C) has not been exercised by the authority for extending the suspension order with regard to the
petitioner. A reference in this regard may be made in case of ""State of T.N. v. Promod Kumar"" reported in (2018) 17 SCC 677. Paragraph nos.24, 25,
26 and 27 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
24. The first respondent was placed under deemed suspension under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services Rules for being in custody for a period of
more than 48 hours. Periodic reviews were conducted for his continuance under suspension. The recommendations of the Review Committees did not
favour his reinstatement due to which he is still under suspension. Mr.P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent
fairly submitted that we can proceed on the basis that the criminal trial is pending. There cannot be any dispute regarding the power or jurisdiction of
the State Government for continuing the first respondent under suspension pending criminal trial. There is no doubt that the allegations made against
the first respondent are serious in nature. However, the point is whether the continued suspension of the first respondent for a prolonged period is
justified.
25. The first respondent has been under suspension for more than six years. While releasing the first respondent on bail, liberty was given to the
investigating agency to approach the Court in case he indulged in tampering with the evidence. Admittedly, no complaint is made by CBI in that
regard. Even now the appellant has no case that there is any specific instance of any attempt by the first respondent to tamper with evidence.
26. In the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held on 27- 6-2016, it was mentioned that the first respondent is capable of exerting pressure and
influencing witnesses and there is every likelihood of the first respondent misusing office if he is reinstated as Inspector General of Police. Only on the
basis of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting, the Principal Secretary, Home (SC) Department ordered extension of the period of suspension
for a further period of 180 days beyond 9-7-2016 vide order dated 6-7-2016.
27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must
necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the
first respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the High
Court that the appellant State has the liberty to appoint the first respondent in a non-sensitive post.
7. In view of the well settled provision of law, it is well settled that the suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. Admittedly, in this case, in
view of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent State, Rule 9(6) (C) has not been invoked for extending the period of suspension or
revocation. The ground of pandemic is not acceptable to the Court in view of the fact that the petitioner has been suspended on 01.07.2019 whereas
the pandemic in India has come in March, 2020, however, four weeks' further time is allowed to the respondent State to conclude the departmental
proceeding. If the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the order of suspension shall automatically be revoked.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition [W.P. (S) No. 42 of 2020] stands disposed of.
9. I.A. if any stands disposed of.
