Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6650 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
The petitioner, who is a head constable in the Excise Department has been placed under suspension by the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Additional Excise Commissioner (Administration) U.P. Allahabad on the ground that the petitioner has detained in jail for more than 48 hours.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been released on bail and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for revocation of his suspension may be considered and in support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rama Shanker Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (3) ADJ 316.
In Ram Shanker (supra) this Court observed:-
"Notice may be taken of the Apex Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, (2003) 6 SCC 516. In paragraph Nos. 14 to 17 of the said decision, the Apex Court has clarified that once a person has been placed under deemed suspension then the same does not get automatically revoked upon release and a fresh order has to be passed. The view expressed by the Full bench in the case of Chandra Shekhar Saxena and etc. V. Director of Education (basic), U.P., Lucknow and anotehr, 1997 ALJ 963, to the effect, that the legal fiction by which the deemed suspension operates will cease to be effective upon release, was reversed.
Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the suspension order but the respondent-authorities are obliged to pass an appropriate order keeping in view the provisions of Sub-Regulation 5 of Regulation 59.
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh relied on the decision in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police v. G.Pandian, (1998) 8 SCC 578, to contend that the provision of deemed suspension applies and the petitioner has no right to get the suspension order revoked. I have perused the said judgement and the same in paragraph No.5 considers the impact of a Rule under Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The said decision was nowhere concerned with the power given to the authority to revoke the suspension as in the present case under Sub- regulation 5 of Regulation 59. The aforesaid decision, therefore, does not apply on the rules that are presently under consideration and on the facts and circumstances of the present case."
Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents states that in case the petitioner files a representation before the competent authority for revocation of his suspension, the same shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner shall submit an application /representation before the competent authority regarding revocation of the order of suspension.
In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court in Rama Shanker (supra), this petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner files a representation before the competent authority for revocation of his suspension order along with a certified copy of this order within a period two weeks from today, an appropriate decision shall be taken expeditiously, preferably, within two months thereafter.
It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case which shall be examined by the competent authority, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 S.Prakash