Judgment:
WP No.2004/2014 11/02/2014 Shri Rajiv Nayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondents on advance copy.
Heard on the question of admission.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.4.2013 by which the petitioner is placed under suspension on account of his involvement in a trap case.
It is contended that after arrest of the petitioner in the said case, though he has been enlarged on bail, but has been placed under suspension and attached in the police line.
No charge sheet whatsoever has been issued to the petitioner nor any criminal case is launched against him.
Therefore, his suspension is illegal.
It is contended that in similar circumstances the Superintendent of Police, Raisen has reinstated one head constable, but similar treatment is not extended to the petitioner.
Therefore, the present writ petition is required to be filed.
Suspension of a police officer is prescribed under the M.P.Police Regulation and the specific provisions are made for suspension of government employees under the provisions of Rule 9 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
As is indicated in the petition as also in the order impugned, the petitioner was caught red handed by the Lokayukta Police receiving bribe and, therefore, he was placed under suspension.
In such corruption cases, only the criminal prosecution is to be done and no departmental enquiry is required to be conducted if not found necessary by the departmental authorities.
That being so, if charge sheet is not issued to the petitioner on account of his suspension within the prescribed period under Rule 9 of the Rules aforesaid, it cannot be said that the suspension of the petitioner is automatically revoked.
Such a plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived.
The circular relied by the petitioner indicates that transfer of such employees who are involved in the corruption cases should be done but it nowhere prescribes that suspension is not permissible.
The object and reason of issuing the circular dated 23.2.2012 is to shift such employees from the place of incidence so that they may not influence the investigation by the investigating agency in the matter of such corruption cases.
However, this will not mean that the employees concerned cannot be placed under suspension.
Therefore, such a circular will not help the petitioner.
Lastly, if an employee is suspended on account of his involvement in a corruption case and if his suspension is revoked after some time, it cannot be said that similar procedure is required to be adopted for other employees who have been suspended on account of involvement in criminal case.
The facts and circumstances in each and every case are required to be taken into consideration by the competent authorities before revocation of suspension.
Here in the case in hand the petitioner was caught red handed by the Lokayukta Police.
Whether the similar were the circumstances in the case of one who was subsequently reinstated in service are not clear from the pleadings in the writ petition.
Therefore, parity cannot be claimed in such matter of suspension, that too in the corruption cases.
The petition is wholly misconceived, which deserves to and is hereby dismissed without notice to the other side.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge shukla-