Disposed

Manju Kumari Sah v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC10 Oct 2012CWJC/14708/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a suspension order. The court ruled that the order was valid as it was passed after the bail period and the service remained continuous. Directions were given regarding the inquiry timeline and subsistence allowance payment.

What did the court decide?

Directions given to conclude inquiry within one month and fix subsistence allowance within ten days.

Manju Kumari Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14708 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Manju Kumari Sah W/O Sri Umesh Prasad Resident Of Village/Mohalla - Rasalpura, P.S. - Doriganj, District - Saran .... .... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna

¶5

1. The Principal Secretary, Gramin Vikash Vibhag, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶6

1. The Additional Secretary Gramin Vikash Vibhag, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶7

1. The Joint Development Commissioner, Gramin Vikash Vibhag, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶8

1. The Joint Secretary Gramin Vikash Vibhag, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶9

1. The Deputy Secretary Gramin Vikash Vibhag , Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶10

1. The Under Secretary Gramin Vikash Vibhag, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶11

1. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga 9. The Superintendent Of Police, Katihar 10. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Barsoi Sub Division, District - Katihar

¶12

1. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 12. The District Development Commissioner, Darbhanga 13. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga 14. The District Magistrate, Katihar 15. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar 16. The Additional Collector, Katihar

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Block - Ghanshyampur, District - Darbhanga 18. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad No. 1 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto Ag

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 10-10-2012 By means of this writ petition petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 11.11.2011 on the ground that the petitioner was taken into custody on 26.09.2011 and was

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.14708 of 2012 (2) dt.10-10-2012

¶17

2 / 3

¶18

released on bail on 11.11.2011 by this Court but the petitioner remained in custody and actually released on 18.11.2011. Rule-9 (3) of Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is quoted hereunder:

¶19

“9(3)(i) After the custody period under sub-rule (2), the period of deemed suspension shall be deemed to end when the Government Servant gives his joining and the joining shall be accepted.

¶20

(ii). If a decision is taken to suspend the Government Servant again under sub-rule (1)(a), or (b) or (c), then such action may be taken only after acceptance of joining and by issuing a separate order.”

¶21

This Rule applies only where there is no suspension order is passed. Since the suspension order has been passed on 11.11.2011 itself which says that after release of the petitioner from jail it shall be under suspension it covers the release in fact though bail was granted on 11.11.2011. No fault can be found with the order on such a highly technical interpretation of Rule9(3). It is settled law that the interpretation of statute should remain in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since, there is an order after the deemed suspension was over, the word „suspension‟ itself denote that petitioner was in service irrespective of the deemed suspension and the suspension order has been passed as it is a suspension from service.

¶22

Since, the charge-sheet has been served upon the

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.14708 of 2012 (2) dt.10-10-2012

¶24

3 / 3

¶25

petitioner, the petitioner shall file reply within 15 days and the enquiry officer shall furnish all the documents required by the petitioner so that he may submit his reply within 15 days. Thereafter, the enquiry shall be concluded within a period of one month and thereafter the punishing authority shall take a decision within 15 days thereafter from the date of receipt of the enquiry report, failing which the suspension order shall stand revoked.

¶26

It is further directed that subsistence allowance due

¶27

till date shall be paid to the petitioner within ten days.

¶28

With the above direction/observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶29

(Prakash Chandra Verma, J)

¶30

Mkr./-

Manju Kumari Sah v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Kumari Sah v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Binay Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kumar Shashi Bhushan Sinha Vs the Bihar School Examination B

Jagdish Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dhananjay Dubey Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.