Ci) $§ngw nch IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP§S)N0: h6®\ of 2011 /, PETITIONER M. P. Dikshit Aged about 56 years Son o‘f Shri Bishnu Pada Dikshit, R/o CMD Bungalow, Nehru Shatabdi Nagar, South Eastern Coamelds Ltd. Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) PIN: 495 006 Versus Kr” RESPONDENTS Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Coal Shastri Bhawan New Delhi /’ Coal india Ltd. Through: Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 10, Netaji Subhash Road, Koikata — 700 001. 13‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W. P. (S)NO.4561 of 2011 (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Present:— Shri Kishore Bhaduri along with Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Maneesh Sharma, Standing counsel for respondent No.1 on advance copy. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 12‘ day of August, 201 1) Heard on admission. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 30—05—2010 (Annexure P-1), by which, the petitioner is deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention i.e.26-05—2010 in terms of sub- rule 24.3(l) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (ln short “the Rules of 1978”). The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to “l respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner and to revoke the SUSpenSIon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in connection with the allegation of commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner was arrested on 26—05—2010 by the C.B.l. As a result of petitioner having remained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, provision of deemed suspension was invoked and the order was passed on 30—05-2010 (Annexure P-1) by the Government of India (Ministry of Coal) to the effect that the petitioner is deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention in terms of sub-rule 24.3(l) of the Rules of 1978 with further stipulation that the petitioner shall remain under suspension until further orders. a: Petitioner M. P. Dixit Versus Respondents Union of lndia and another @ 4. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the matter is being investigated by the investigating Agency, i.e. the C.B.l. for the last about 14 months. it is the case of the petitioner that in the investigation, so far made; no incriminating evidence has come against the petitioner. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on 16-07-2010. The petitioner preferred representation (Annexure P—5) followed by another representation (Annexure P-6) for revocation of his suspension and allowing him to join his duty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the petitioner is deemed to have been suspended, the competent authority is under an obligation -to consider the petitioner’s representation for revocation of his suspension, taking into consideration various circumstances, which have been enumerated by the petitioner in his representation seeking revocation. 6. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the provision contained under sub-rule 24.3 (i) of the Rules of 1978, which provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 24.3 (i) shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. It is V submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision clearly shows that the competent authority may consider this aspect and the order of suspension be either modified or revoked by the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the representations, which have been made by the petitioner, needs just and fair consideration. Learned counsel lastly submitted that in these circumstances, the respondents may be directed to consider the representations of the petitioner, by which, the petitioner has prayed for revocation of his suspension. ‘6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1, who appeared on advance copy, submitted that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of l suspension, there exists an efficacious remedy of tiling appeal as provided under F3, Ruie 36 of‘the Rules of 1978. He submits that if the petitioner had any grievance with regard to order of suspension, it was open for the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority, which he has not done. Therefore, the petition is not maintainabie. 7. A perusai of the provision contained in Rule 24.3 of the Rules of 1978 .shows that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under rule 24.3(i) shall continue to remain enforce until it is modified or revoked by the z: s Authority competent to do so. Therefore, the competent authority has power to modify or revoke the order of suspension. The petitioner has made representations before the competent authority praying for revocation of his suspension. The representations, which have been made by the petitioner, therefore, require consideration at the end of the competent authority in terms of l «aw the provisions contained hereinabove. 8. Even though, in the petition relief has been claimed for quashing the order of deemed suspension (Annexure P—1), during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made prayer in his representation to revoke suspension, and for that, the authority is competent to exercise his power of modmcation or revocation as provided under the Rules of 1978, even if no appeal against the order of suspension has been preferred. 9. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, i am of the opinion that if the petitioner has made representation praying for revocation, it requires consideration. Whether the petitioner’s suspension should be revoked or modified on the grounds, which have been raised by the petitioner in his representation, is entirely a matter of consideration by the competent authority. 10. Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed off. The respondent authority may consider the petitioner’s representation for revocation/modincation in es$>i<ta accordance with law and take appropriate decision thereon. lt is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner for revocation of suspension and it shall be open for the competent authority to take such decision as may be considered expedient in the exigencies of the administration. ’ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge