IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA -------- Letters Patent Appeal No.797 of 2011 -------- Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 16-8- 2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2384 of 2010 by a Bench of this Court. -------- 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.................. Appellants Versus Abhimanyu Singh , son of Late Ram Janam Singh, resident of village- Kobil, Police Station- Islampur, District- Nalanda...................................................... Respondent -------- 5 19-8-2011 Heard the parties. The sole respondent was at the relevant time posted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes at Bettiah. On account of a trap on the allegation that illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- ( Twenty five thousand) was accepted by the writ petitioner, Vigilance Case No. 065 of 2006 dated 17-10-2006 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was instituted and on that account he was taken into custody and therefore placed under suspension by an order dated 6-12-2006 under the provisions of Bihar Government Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) 2 Rules, 2005 ( hereinafter referred to as the `Rules’). After he was released from custody the authorities placed him under fresh suspension on 19th March, 2007 on account of criminal case as well as departmental proceeding. The respondent had earlier moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 15935 of 2009 raising a grievance that in spite of an enquiry report holding that charges could not be proved, submitted in September,2008, the proceeding was being delayed and kept pending and he was suffering from continued suspension. Annexure-5 to the writ petition contains order dated 23-2-2010 passed by a single Judge of this Court disposing of the aforesaid writ petition. In that order the Court did not notice the pendency of the criminal case and the fact that suspension in the year 2007 was on account of criminal case as well as the departmental proceeding. On the premise that only the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding was the reason for suspension, a direction was issued to bring to an end the departmental proceeding within one month from the date of production of a copy of that order. There was further direction to the Principal Secretary Department of Commercial Taxes, 3 Bihar to examine why the proceeding had been delayed and who was responsible for such delay and to pass a reasoned order in that regard. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 2384 of 2010 which has been allowed by the learned single Judge by the order under appeal dated 16-8-2010 resulting into setting aside the order of suspension dated 19th March 2007 as well as the order of the Principal Secretary dated 23-2-2010 ( annexure-8 to I.A. filed in the writ proceeding) . On considering the order of the Principal Secretary the writ Court found that the views of the Secretary to continue the suspension on account of an apprehension that revocation of suspension may affect the criminal trial, was not justified and mainly on that account it was held that there does not appear any justification to continue with the suspension of the writ petitioner. The views of the writ court were also based upon the facts that the enquiry report submitted in September, 2008 was not rejected by the authorities and they had merely prolonged the departmental proceeding by deciding that it shall be 4 concluded after criminal trial. On behalf of appellant - State it has been submitted that under the Rules there is no obligation upon the authority to revoke or cancel a suspension when it is on account of a criminal case, till the criminal trial is concluded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no error in the views taken by the writ court and once the enquiry report in favour of the writ petitioner was not diferred with by the competent authority for such a long time, it would suggest that the case against the writ petitioner does not hold much water. Under the Rules the State has been empowered to suspend an employee on account of criminal charges pending against him and there is no time limit indicated in the rules for revocation or cancellation of suspension before the trial concludes. No doubt there are enabling provisions in the Rules under which if the authorities are satisfied they may revoke such an order of suspension without waiting for the conclusion of criminal trial. When suspension is continued for a long time on account of non-conclusion of a departmental proceeding, 5 the blame naturally must go upon the disciplinary authority and in such eventuality this Court generally exercises power to interfere with the order of suspension on the ground of unusual delay, arbitrariness, impropriety etc. The situation in a case where suspension is on account of criminal charges would be quite different. Criminal cases are conducted not by the disciplinary authority but by the police or vigilance in courts of law. Unless the State is found lacking in promptitude and it can be safely inferred that it is causing unnecessary delay in disposal of the criminal case leading to harassment of the concerned employee, it would not be proper for a writ court to set aside an order of suspension passed on account of a criminal prosecution. In the present case the writ court has not interfered with the decision of the department to stay the disciplinary proceeding till conclusion of the criminal trial. In such a situation the only ground for interfering with the order of suspension would be unusual inaction or lethargy on the part of prosecution leading to unwarranted delay in conclusion of the trial. That is not the situation in the present case. 6 In order to satisfy ourselves, we had requested learned Additional Advocate General-I, Mr. Lalit Kishore to inform us about the present stage of the criminal trial. We have been informed that cognizance has already been taken in the month of March, 2011 and thereafter the case is pending in a Special Court at Patna. The police papers have reportedly been furnished to the accused. The learned Additional Advocate General-I has further informed this Court that the prosecution is willing to examine its witnesses expeditiously and if the accused co-operates the trial may be concluded within a reasonable period such as six months. We expect the parties to be prompt and co- operative. Considering the long period of suspension suffered by the respondent/petitioner, we direct the authorities and the Court concerned to expedite the trial of the writ petitioner so that it is concluded without any delay and preferably within six months. In case the trial continues beyond the aforesaid period, for no fault of the petitioner, he may approach the authority for revocation of his suspension and if the authority does not revoke the 7 order of suspension, he may approach this Court again. With this observation the appeal is allowed. The order of the writ court shall stand modified accordingly. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey, J)