1. Applicant (Santosh Kumar Mishra) is a Member of 1983 batch of Indian Administrative Service. In this original application Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, he has challenged the order (of his suspension from services) dated 4th May, 2002 passed under Annexure-5, by branding the same being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and outcome mala fides. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to allow him to maintain silence in the disciplinary proceedings on the face of the criminal cases initiated against him on self-same allegations.
2. The short facts of this case are that the applicant was posted as the Collector of Gajapati District of Orissa during the year 1992 and continued there till August, 1994. During the incumbency of the applicant as Collector of Gajapati District, some development works were undertaken/executed by the Project Administrator of Integrated Tribal Development Agency and that the successor Collector of said Gajapati District alleged to have reviewed the entire work done under the supervision of the applicant (as Collector of Gajapati) and pointed out (in a report to the State Government of Orissa) some irregularities alleged to have been committed by the applicant. On the basis of the said report, the State Government of Orissa, instead of inquiring into the matter depart-mentally, referred the matter to the Police for investigation and, accordingly, Vigilance Police Station cases were registered (as Berhampur) against the applicant on 1.10.1998. To bring home a case of mala fide, the applicant has alleged that, suddenly, a Vigilance Police raid was conducted in the house of the applicant, just before he was due to get promotion (to Super Time Scale) and a case of possessing properties disproportionate to the known sources of income was registered against him and the applicant was placed under suspension on 29.6.1999. It is the case of the applicant that while he was under suspension, the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened (on 19.7.1999) and the case of the applicant (for promotion to Super Time Scale) was kept in a sealed cover. Applicant was, later, reinstated on 22.12.1999 and, on his said reinstatement, the sealed cover was opened, belatedly on 7.2.2000; when it was found that the applicant had been assessed as unsuitable for such promotion. However, with the intervention of this Tribunal, the case of the applicant (for promotion) was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 2.6.2001 (which received the approval on 18.6.2001) and, before giving actual promotion, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the applicant and his promotion has again been withheld. He was then posted as Managing Director of OREDA w.e.f. 22.12.1999. It is the case of the applicant that on the basis of the Vigilance case (pertaining to the year 1992-1994) the respondents have, again, for the second time; placed the applicant under suspension (vide Annexure-5, i.e., State Government of Orissa Notification No. 14305 dated 4.5.2002) when the present posting of the applicant (in a State Government Corporation) is/was no way concerned with the departmental proceedings nor with the pending vigilance case. In support of his claim, the applicant has also relied upon the provisions Rule-3 of AIS (D&A) Rules and it has been stated by the Advocate for the applicant at the hearing, that without having any objective satisfaction (as required under the Rules governing the field) he has been placed under suspension mechanically.
It has been alleged in this case that the respondent No. 2 (State Government) has been keeping the applicant under constant harrassment since 1998 by adhering to illegal and cooked up stories and, thereby, withholding his promotion. It is also the case of the applicant that if at all the disciplinary proceedings that has been initiated against him is allowed to proceed, then his defence in criminal case shall be seriously jeopardised.
3. State Government of Orissa (respondent No. 2) has filed a counter explaining that under Rule 3(1) of the AIS (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1969 the respondents/Government has the power to place a member of the All India Service, against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending, under suspension and since disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the applicant (as per the report of the Director Vigilance communicated in letter No. 2242/Vig. Cell and No. 2255/Vig. Cell dated 2.5.2002 read with his U.O.I. No. 15/Vig. Cell dated 1.5.2002) the State Government have placed the applicant under suspension on 4.5.2002. It has been disclosed in the counter that in the meantime, disciplinary proceedings have already been drawn against the applicant in General Administration Department Memorandum No. 17467 dated 20.5.2002 and G.A. Department Memorandum No. 17471 dated 20.5.2002.
It has also been disclosed in the counter of the State Government that though the applicant was previously placed under suspension w.e.f.
29.6.1999 (on contemplation of disciplinary proceedings for acquisition of properties disproportionate to his known source of income; pending contemplation of vigilance investigation) yet he was reinstated in service under State Government (G.A. Department) Notification dated 22.12.1999. Subsequent thereto, however, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the applicant vide G.A. Department Memorandum No.19151/AIS.I dated 25.6.2001 read with Corrigendum No. 19923/AIS.I dated 2.7.2001.
It has also been disclosed in the said counter that since the present order of suspension of the applicant (as impugned in the present case) and the disciplinary proceedings drawn up against the applicant vide G.A. Department Memorandum No. 174467/AIS.I. dated 20.5.2002 and No.17471/AIS.I dated 20.5.2002 and No. 17471/ AIS.I. dated 20.5.2002 differ from the Article of charges framed against the applicant vide G.A. Department Memorandum No. 19151/AIS dated 25.6.2001 and corrigendum No. 19923/AIS.I dated 3.7.2001; there were no bar before the State Govt. to place the applicant under suspension afresh.
It has been alleged in the said counter that during the incumbency of the applicant as Collector of Gajapati District (during the period from 2.10.1992 to 16.8.1994) he had entered into criminal conspiracy and, consequently, five Vigilance cases are pending against him. The respondent No. 2 in its counter has described elaborately the irregularities/illegalities alleged to have been committed by the applicant.
With regard to the promotion to the applicant to Super Time Scale, it has been disclosed in the counter that according to Sub-rule 2A of Rule 3 of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, an officer is eligible for promotion to the Super Time Scale after completion of 16 years of service, which is admissible with effect from 1st. January of the 16th year; that the applicant was due for promotion to the Super Time Scale during July, 1999, when his batch-mates were promoted to the said grade; that though the meeting of the Screening Committee was convened on 16.6.1999 (to consider the cases of all the I.A.S. officer of 1983 batch, for being taken to the Super Time Scale); due to want of up-to-date A.C.Rs. of most of the officers, the said D.P.C. was kept in abeyance and, ultimately, held on 19.7.1999; when, though the applicant was considered 'Unsuitable,' his case was kept in a sealed cover as he was placed under suspension with effect from 29.6.1999. Hence he could not be promoted along with his batch-mates during July, 1999. In this manner, the reason of not giving promotion to the applicant to Super Time Scale and the delay occured for giving consideration to the case of the applicant has been explained in the counter. In explaining so, it has been urged that it cannot be said that the proceedings have been initiated only for the purpose of stalling his promotion.
A stand has also been taken in the counter that since the applicant has not made Successor-Collector of Gajapati District as one of the respondents in this case, the assertion of mala fide grudge is not tenable to be accepted in absence of the person against who allegation of mala fide has been raised.
On the above grounds, the respondent No. 2 has opposed the prayer of the applicant made in this original application.
4. Applicant has filed a rejoinder and additional rejoinder to the counter stating therein that on 29.6.1999, when placed under suspension, the applicant was functioning as the Managing Director of Orissa Textile Mills at Choudwar (a semi-Government organisation) and the said order was revoked on 22.12.1999 posting him as Chief Executive of O.R.E.D.A., which is another semi-Government Organisation. While continuing as such, for the second time, he has been visited with another order of suspension on 4.5.2002, vindictively. It has been urged by the applicant that for an alleged conduct of the year 1994 (while he was functioning as the Collector of Gajapati District of Orissa) he has been placed under suspension in the year 2002 that too when he was in a different place; which shows the non-application of mind of the authorities/ respondents. It has been urged by the applicant in Para-3 of his rejoinder that though the successor of the applicant, as Collector of Gajapati, had indulged in a number of illegal practices and many vigilance cases having been instituted against him, for his direct involvement in alienation of Govt. funds, no such drastic steps has been taken against him. It has been urged that the vigilance cases instituted against his successor, namely, Dr.
H.K. Panda, are more or less referred to the allegation which he alleged against the applicant; and the only difference is that the applicant is implicated out of suspicion; whereas the said reporting successor is directly implicated as the Principal author of the said crime. In order to substantiate the above facts, he has also filed the copies of the FIRs (made against Dr. Panda; the successor of the applicant as Collector of Gajapati) as Annexure-6 series to the rejoinder. It has also been claimed that by making gross discrimination, the State Govt. did not make any such prosecution against Dr. Panda, but, however, with the intervention of the Spl.
Judge, Vigilance (at the behest of the general public) though Vigilance cases have been registered, Dr. Panda has not yet been placed under suspension.
Though the applicant has exhaustively elaborated the aid and the requirement of the scheme as per the guidelines of the Govt. of India/Govt. of Orissa, yet we do not want to highlight the same in the matter; as these will be considered by the vigilance authorities in the case pending before them. Applicant has also urged several facts in order to show as to how hastiness has been shown in framing the charges etc., and as to how such actions show the mala fide intention of the authorities/respondents. As a last straw on the Camel's back, it has been averred by the applicant that while the applicant was working as Chief Executive of O.R.E.D.A. he was selected to receive Gold Medal for his distinguished work under Annexure-16 to the rejoinder.
5. We have heard Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate (assisted by Advocate Mr. S. Mohanty) appearing for the applicant; Mr.
K.C. Mohanty, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Govt.
of Orissa and Mr. U.B. Mohapatra, learned additional standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India and perused the records of the parties. We have also perused the connected documents/files produced by Mr. K.C. Mohanty, learned Government Advocate pursuant to our direction.
6. Before dealing with the matter/answering the issue of this case, we have to look into and answer the preliminary objections raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of this original application. The preliminary objection has been set forth on the plea that since the applicant had not exhausted the Departmental remedy, as required under Rule 16(1) of the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, against his order of suspension, this original application is not maintainable at this stage, on the face of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Rule 16(1) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 reads as follows: "16. Orders against which appeal lies--Subject to the provisions of Rule 15 and the explanation, to Rule 6, a member of the service may prefer an appeal the Central Government against all or any of the following orders, namely : (i) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule3".
By referring to the above provisions of the Rules of 1969, the respondents have pointed out that the applicant had a right to prefer a representation to his authorities and no such representation having been given by the applicant, before approaching this Tribunal, this original application, Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is not maintainable for the reason of Section 20 thereof.
Section 20 of the A.T. Act, 1985 reads as follows: "20. Applications not to be Admitted unless other Remedies Exhausted:--(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2) For the purpose of Sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances: (a) if a final order has been made by Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejections any appeal preferred or representation made by such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or (b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of Sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial." Thus, the preliminary issue before us is as to whether this case is maintainable for the reason of the provisions Under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 16 of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969. Similar question came up for consideration before this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kishore Chandra Pattanayak v.State of Orissa and Ors., (1987) 4 Administrative Tribunals Cases 812, in which an I.P.S. Officer came up before this Tribunal (for alleged non-consideration of his case, when his juniors were being given such promotion) without exhausting the alternate remedy as available under the relevant rules and, in the said case, similar issues were raised by the respondents stating that the said original application was not maintainable and, after examining the matter at a great length and after taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was held that Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 does not create a total bar for entertaining the case of that applicant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. While exhaustively dealing with Rule 20 of the Act it was observed as follows: "This eventually means that Court or the Tribunal may take a departure from the general rule in appropriate cases. Legislature has also vested discretion with the Tribunal while using the word 'Ordinarily' in Section 20 of the Act. The Legislature has intended that as a general rule every case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that other remedies have not been exhausted. There might be cases where emergent situation may need immediate interference and therefore, the Parliament in its wisdom has intentionally used the word 'Ordinarily' having in its mind that there may be cases in which an aggrieved person should not wait to exhaust other remedies but should immediately seek for the interference and protection of a Court." 7. We hereby ever-rule the preliminary objection (as raised by the learned Government Advocate representing the State of Orissa), which is no more res-integra; in view of the above noted settled position of law. We may note it here that 'there may be pain without injury, sorrow without tears but no right without remedy'. Here is a case where a senior (I.A.S.) Officer has been placed under suspension. The apprehension of the applicant is that the Appellate Authority may take good bit of time to dispose of the representation/appeal and till the disposal of the said appeal, the applicant would be looked down upon in the eyes of the Society for nothing and without any fault on his part; he will be deprived of his dignity, position and standing, if he has any merit in his case. Therefore, we feel that this is a fit case (having been involved with certain emergent situations) where the word 'ordinarily' used in Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is attracted in favour of the applicant and, accordingly, we would hold that Section 20 of the Act does not create a bar to entertain the present original application; in the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in this case (as discussed by us in the paragraphs to be followed) and, accordingly, this original application is held to be maintainable.
8. Before going over to the merit of the case, we are to note that power to place a Member of the All India Services under suspension has been vested with the Governor under Rule 3 of Part II of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The text of the said Rule 3 of the Rules of 1969 is extracted herein below for a ready reference: "3. Suspension (1) If, having regard to the circumstances in any case, and, where articles of charge have been drawn up, the nature of the charges, Government of a State or the Central Government, as the case may be, is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a member of the service, against when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending that Government may: (a) If the member of the service serving under that Government, pass an order placing him under suspension, or (b) If the member of the service is serving under another Government, request that Government to place him under suspension.
Pending the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the passing of the final order in the cases: (i) between two State Governments, the matter shall be referred to the Central Government for its decision; (ii) between a State Government and the Central Government, the opinion of the Central Government shall prevail; Provided further that, where a member of the service against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated is suspended, such suspension shall not be valid unless before the expiry of a period of ninety days from the date from which the member was suspended, disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him.
Provided also that the Central Government may, at any time before the expiry of the said period of ninety days and after considering the special circumstances for not initiating disciplinary proceedings, to be recorded in writing allow continuance of the suspension order beyond the period of ninety days without the disciplinary proceedings being initiated." A plain reading of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1969 makes it clear that a positive satisfaction should be there with the Government to show that it is necessary/desirable to place a member of the All India Service under suspension and thereafter only a suspension order can be passed.
Thus, subjective satisfaction for achieving the object of placing a member of All India Services under suspension is a sine qua non under the rules governing the field.9. In order to find out as to whether the State Government has recorded its satisfaction for placing the present applicant (a member of the Indian Administrative Service) under suspension, the State Government of Orissa was called upon to cause production of the file from which the impugned order of suspension (dated 4th May, 2002 under Annexure-5) was issued. In response to the said direction, learned Government Advocate Mr. K.C. Mohanty, representing the State Government of Orissa, produced the file No. AIS/V-6/02 of General Admn. Department of Government of Orissa, which goes to show that On 1.5.2002 the following note was produced (by the Director-cum-Additional Director General of Police of Vigilance and Ex-Officio Special Secretary to Govt. of Orissa in General Administration (Vigilance) Department) before the Chief Secretary of the Government of Orissa: Berhampur Vig. P.S. Case No. 6/98 U/S. 13(2) r/w 13(l)(d) P.C. Act 1988/467/ 477-A/34 IPC was registered on the allegation that Shri S.K. Mishra, LAS, Ex-Collector, Gajapati and others in the capacity of office bearers of Gajapati Sakhyarata Parisad misappropriated huge amount of money received from National Literacy Mission and State Literacy Mission by way of irregular purchase in inflated rate, drawal of advances and payment.
During investigation it revealed that Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, I.A.S., was posted as Collector, Gajapati from 2.10.1992 to 16.8.94 and was holding the charge of Chairman of Gajapati Sakhyarata Parishad (G.S.P.), since its inception i.e. 6.2.93 to 16.8.94 i.e.
the date on which he handed over charge to his successor. Sri Krishna Ch. Mishra, OAS (I) was posted as Sub-Collector.
Paralakhernundi from 11.12.91 to 9.11.94 and was holding the charge, of Secretary, G.S.P. from 6.2.93 to 9.11.94, Sri Bhaskar Charan Patnaik, OAS, C.I.C., Collectorate was posted as O.I.C., G.S.P. from 6.9.94 on wards and Sri Trinath Satapathy, Sr. Clerk-cum-Nazir, Collectorate, Gajapati was Accountant of G.S.P. since 16.8.93 and maintained the cash book from 12.10.93 to 15.12.94.
In course of investigation excess payment of Rs. 17,95,032.00/- has been found to be made in purchase of reading and writing materials, vide shooling, hiring of vehicles and training and environment building. Excess payments have been made in purchase of materials ignoring the lowest older and in certain cases purchase has been made without due diligence. The I.O. has arrived at the excess payment made to the different suppliers by examining officials of neighbouring districts Sakhyarata Prasad, Orissa Govt. Press, State Resource Centre and other reputed dealers. Apart from excess payments, verification of stock revealed short supply. The B.D.Os have been paid only 40% of the amount shown to be advanced against them with instructions be adjust the entire amount. The irregularities have been audited by a Special Audit Team whose report tallies with the findings of the I.O. During the investigation it came to light that one Ahas Jena of Kumulasing of Gajapati, a landless small grocery shop owner has been shown to have been paid Rs. 2.91/- lakhs towards hire charges of vehicles. He admits to have given his signature on blank papers.
On 16.4.2002, one of the accused person, Sri Trinath Satapathy, who was posted as accountant in Gajapati Sakhayarta Parisada, Paralakhemundi under Shri Santosh Kumar Misra, IAS, Ex-Collector, Gajapati deposed in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur as an approved U/S. 306 Cr. P.C. His statement has been recorded U/S. 164/306 Cr. P.C. by the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur. In his deposition Shri Trinath Satapathy stated before the Court that he was handling the entire cash transactions under Total Literacy Campaign as per the instructions of Sri S.K. Mishra, IAS. He was instructed to pay only 40% of the advance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to each B.D.O. and prepare false voucher of Rs. 2 lakhs. In the process Rs. 3.4 lakhs was defrauded and subsequently paid to Sri S.K. Mishra. Sri Mishra, Collector took of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the cash and a voucher showing false advance to one Ahas Jena was prepared at his instance. An amount of Rs. 2,78,080/- has been defrauded by preparing false vouchers towards hiring of vehicles.
Rs. 33,750/-has been defrauded towards purchase of volunteer dairy from M/s. Banita Traders. An amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been misappropriated from other expenditures. Shri Trinath Satapathy, had paid total cash of Rs. 16,50,000/- to Shri S.K. Mishra out of the funds of he TLC from time to time and had noted the amount paid to each date on the Rough Cash Book maintained in the Gajapati Sakhyarata Parishad. The Rough Cash Book and the vouchers have been seized. The statement of the approver before the Court inspires confidence and lends credence to the prosecution case.
Misappropriation of Government money to the tune of Rs. 16,50,000/- for personal gain by Shri S.K. Mishra IAS, is prima facie proved during investigation. Government may please take exemplary action against Shri Mishra for his involvement in serious corruption involving huge public money in the public interest. Continuance of such an officer in higher position is bound to have an adverse impact." On a perusal of the State Government file, it further reveals that, on 2.5.2002, the Chief Secretary; without recording any satisfaction for placing the applicant under suspension, as required under the rules; just appended his one line note as follows: The State Government file also speaks that on the very next day, i.e., on 3.5.2002, the Chief Minister of Orissa(without any note of satisfaction, to place the applicant under suspension) just endorsed the unreasoned views dated 2.5.2002 of the Chief Secretary.
10. The aforesaid notings of various authorities show that without recording any "satisfaction" to place the applicant under suspension (as required under Rule 3 of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969), the applicant was placed under suspension on" 4th May, 2002. There are no materials also available on record (either in the notings of the Director (Vig.), of the Chief Secretary or of the Chief Minister) to show as to whether the suspension order was a "punitive one" or "during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against the applicant long before "or" on contemplation of any disciplinary proceedings"; and that goes to show that the applicant was directed to be placed under suspension, by the State Government of Orissa, without due application of mind.
The impugned order of suspension under Annexure-5 dated 4th May, 2002 (issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary to Government of Orissa in General Administration Department) further goes to show that the applicant was directed to be placed under suspension, while a disciplinary proceedings was contemplated. Government file produced before us reveals that this impugned order of suspension was drawn by the Deputy Secretary of the General Administration Department and received approval of the Additional Secretary and Special Secretary of the Department and it never received the approval either of the Chief Secretary or of the Chief Minister of the State. Thus, the ground shown on the face of the impugned order of suspension under Annexure-5 dated 4th May, 2002 (wherein, the suspension order was asked to be one issued at the stage of contemplation of disciplinary proceedings) does not reflect the real intention of the State Government/Competent Authority; since at no point of time, State Government took a decision to place the applicant under suspension "on contemplation of any disciplinary proceedings." Thus, reflection of such a ground in the impugned order of suspension, by clerical process, cannot cure the inherent defect.
A stand has been taken in the counter filed by the State Government stating that the Applicant was placed under suspension on contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there are development of the case from time to time by the respondents, apparently, to cure the inherent defect as is apparent from the Government file. Thus, power is also not available with the subordinates.
We are fortified by the views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do."Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 51, observed as follows: "When a statutory functionary makes as order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise." 11. The discussions, as made above, shows that the suspension of the applicant was improper and is an out come of non-application of mind of the State Government of Orissa. Therefore, the order is not sustainable (in the touch stone of the present judicial scrutiny of the executive action of the State Government) because of the gross violation /dis-respect shown to the provisions of Rule 3 of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969.
12. While giving preliminary hearing of this case, the following questions were posed to the State Government requiring them to answer the said aspects of the matter in their counter. The relevant portion of the Order No. 2 dated 17.5.2002 passed by this Tribunal is extracted herein below: "The respondents are called upon to file a regular counter to the O.A., more fully describing the circumstances under which the suspension order has been passed. Respondents should come out with a clear picture pertaining to the allegation of mala fides, as raised in the O.A. and the unavoidable reasons for which the suspension order has been passed, and/or the applicant has been placed under suspension after a lapse of more than five years of alleged detection of misconduct. This, they should do, because, the allegations pertaining to 19.11.94 which came to the knowledge of the Government in 1995, for which the Vigilance cases were initiated against the applicant in 1999. During the inter-agnum the applicant came away from Gajapati District and at the moment of passing of the present suspension order he was at a semi-Governmental organisation, like O.R.E.D.A. and there is a prima facie view taken that there are no scope for him to tamper with the materials hindering smooth investigation/trial/disciplinary proceedings." However, while filing counter no compelling reasons were shown (by the State Government) as to why the applicant was placed under suspension; although there was remote chance for the applicant to tamper the evidences required to substantiate the allegations against him; either in the disciplinary proceedings or in the criminal cases. Law is well settled that one should be treated as innocent till he is found guilty, after giving him all opportunities. In the instant case, in absence of any materials to show that there was any compelling reason to place the applicant under suspension, we hereby held that the suspension of the applicant under Annexure-5 dated 4th May, 2002 is not sustainable.
13. Applicant was placed under suspension on 4th May, 2002. In the meantime one year has elapsed and we have not been informed anything to show as to whether the respondents (both Government of India and Government of Orissa) have given any fresh consideration for continuance of the order of suspension of the applicant. In our order dated 6.5.2002 we made the position clear that pendency of this original application shall not stand on the way of the applicant to represent to the respondents for redressal of his grievance and pendency of this original application shall also not stand on the way of the respondents to grant necessary relief to the applicant in the matter of his restoration/revocation of the order of suspension.
Liberty having been available with the respondents, they have not, as it appears, given any consideration for continuation or revocation of the order of suspension; which again shows that the respondents have placed the applicant under suspension not with any bona fide intention.
We have not gone into the valley of allegations of mala fide, as raised in the original application, because we have already taken a view in favour of the applicant for the reasons already explained in the foregoing paragraphs.
14. In view of the discussions made above, we have found justifiable reasons to quash the order of suspension dated 4th May, 2002 under Annexure-5 and, therefore, the order of suspension under Annexure-5 dated 4th May, 2002 is hereby quashed and, as a necessary consequence, the applicant should be reinstated forthwith. In the result, this original application is allowed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.