IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16434 of 2009 1. MATHURA RAM S/O LATE NAGINA RAM VILL- GHORWAS DIH, P.S. KACHHAWAN, DISTT. ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) CUM JOINT SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. COMMISSIONER PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PURNEA For the Petitioner: M/S Ajay Kumar Thakur, Imteyaz Ahmad. For the State : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G. 10 ----------- 2. 13.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 7.10.2009 for making compassionate appointment of wards of Assistant teacher on compassionate ground in a selfish manner violating government orders and instructions. He questioned the same in CWJC No. 13667 of 2009, on the ground that he made the appointment when it was alleged in the Janta Darbar of the Chief Minister held on 13.2.2009, to be dilly dallying in making appointment as contained in the letter dated 2.3.2009. It was submitted that the petitioner was sought to be penalized when he does not make appointment, and when he makes the appointment, after the direction, he is suspended in light of certain other directions. This Court disposed the matter with a direction to the Principal Secretary to pass a reasoned and speaking order which has now been done on 16.11.2009 presently impugned. Counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. This court does not consider it necessary in the facts of 2 the case. In the limited nature of the controversy, the impugned order containing reasons cannot be explained in a counter affidavit and shall have to be assessed upon the reasons stated therein. This court does not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter for that reason as no useful purpose shall be served and the order cannot be explained in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner from the letter dated 2.3.2009 submits that it blames the petitioner for not taking appropriate action to make appointment recommended by the Compassionate Appointment Committee in terms of Government instructions dated 2.7.2007. Janta Darbar was held on 13.2.2009. The petitioner then made appointment on 28.2.2009. The persons, who have been appointed, were duly recommended by the Compassionate Appointment Committee and are not illegal appointees. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner made appointments on 28.2.2009 before the instruction dated 2.3.2009 which he relies upon in his defence. The defence is fallacious. The impugned order dated 16.11.2009 does not deny that those appointed have been recommended by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee. It appears that earlier they were recommended for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak whereafter the State Government issued certain instructions that such persons could not be appointed as Panchayat Shikshak but are to be appointed on regular Government post as 3 has been considered by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 13944 of 2005 in context of a Government letter dated 17.10.2008. Therefore, the appointments made by the petitioner cannot be stated to be illegal appointments made for personal gain. The impugned order does not deal with the Government instructions dated 2.7.2007 mentioned in the letter dated 2.3.2009. It admits the existence of Janta Darbar on 13.2.2009. The defence of the petitioner is that he was questioned for not making appointments when he made the appointments on 28.2.2009. The impugned order does not deny that Janta Darbar was held on the aforesaid date when the petitioner was questioned and admonished during the proceedings for not making appointments. Once the impugned order recognizes that the instruction dated 2.3.2009 questioning him for not making appointments, this Court is prima facie, satisfied that it cannot be stated that the petitioner has committed a gross irregularity of the manner being urged by the respondents to warrant his suspension. Prima facie, it is not a case of any illegal appointment made by him, but at best an irregularity duly explained. The letter dated 2.3.2009 only corroborates his defence. This observation is confined to the consideration of the issue of his suspension only and shall have no bearing whatsoever on any departmental proceedings that he may be subjected to, which shall have to arrive at its own independent findings. Suspension is a serious matter. It deprives the delinquent of full salary, which has an affect on his family 4 responsibilities. It affects the morale of the Government servant, which affects his status in the society when he becomes an object of ridicule. For this reason, in (1999) 3 SCC 679 (Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & anr.) the Supreme Court has deprecated the suspension syndrome being resorted to by the administrative authorities on the slightest of pretext. The impugned orders dated 7.10.2009 and 16.11.2009 are set aside. This Court has made no observation with regard to the departmental proceedings which shall take its own course in law. The application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)