1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ghaus Beg on behalf of respondent no. 3 and 4. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.
2. The petitioner was appointed on class IV post on compassionate ground by appointment letter dated 28.10.1993, issued by respondent no.3. By order dated 9.10.2013, he was placed under suspension on the ground of his detention in jail in crime case no. 32/13 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. Subsequently, by order dated 16.4.2014, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. The petitioner thereafter, made representation on 7.8.2014 to the District Basic Education Officer, Bahraich to revoke the suspension order. When no action was taken, he sent reminders and has now approached this Court for quashing of the suspension order dated 9.10.2013.
3. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension cannot continue beyond the period of detention. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Saxena vs. Dy. Director of Education reported in 1997 (1) ESC 494.
4. Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 and 4 points out that after the petitioner was enlarged on bail, the authorities have to apply their mind whether suspension order should be revoked or not and there is no automatic revocation of the suspension. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Kumar reported in 2003(6) SCC 516 wherein, the Apex Court overruled the Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Saxena (supra) and held that suspension on ground of detention in jail, does not stand terminated automatically on release from detention.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepting the said legal position submitted that the respondents be directed to decide his claim for revocation of the suspension order as contained in his representation dated 17.11.2014, within a fixed time frame, to which Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 and 4 have no objection.
6. In view of the above, without interfering with the impugned order dated 9.10.2013, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure 6) for revocation of the suspension order, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order alongwith the photostat copy of the application dated 17.11.2014.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 24.11.2014 skv