IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16155 of 2010 MUKUND CHOUDHARY. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioner: - Sri Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Sri Harish Kumar, Adv. For the State: - A.A.G.-2 For the Intervener: - Sri S.N. Yadav, Adv. ---------- 2. 4.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his order of suspension dated 17.9.2010 which is in contemplation of departmental proceedings. This order proposes to take note of the facts of the case only to the extent necessary. By order dated 27.3.2007, the petitioner was transferred on the post of Lecturer to Bangra in the District of Saran. He approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11813 of 2007. Earlier an order of status quo had been passed in similar matters in L.P.A. No. 433 of 2007. This Court directed the writ petition to be listed after disposal of the L.P.A. and status quo was also directed to be maintained in similar manner. The interim order in favour of the petitioner was conditional in nature and dependent on the final order in the L.P.A. Any final order in the 2 L.P.A. would automatically apply to the petitioner when his case would be listed separately only for a formal order to that effect. The impugned order dated 17.9.2010 contains discussion that the petitioner wrongly obtained benefits under the garb of status quo. This Court does not consider it necessary to go into that aspect at this stage. The petitioner was earlier placed under suspension on 23.7.2010 for not complying the order of transfer dated 27.3.2010 and departmental proceedings initiated. On challenge, this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12366 of 2010, held that in view of the interim order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11813 of 2007, suspension and departmental proceedings were not justified. The issue of transfer was left open. The suspension was then revoked by an order on 6.9.2010. During suspension his headquarter had been fixed at Saran. This Court finds substance in the submission of the petitioner that even after the dismissal of the L.P.A. on 30.7.2009, so long the suspension continued i.e., till 6.9.2010, the petitioner could not have complied the order of transfer. 3 That leaves the period from 6.9.2010 to 17.9.2010, of 11 days only when the petitioner has been suspended again for not joining the fresh place of posting. A delay of joining the transferred place of posting for 11 days may warrant issues of administrative discipline subject to the provisions of Rule 255 of the Bihar Service Code. However, this Court is satisfied that this period of 11 days may not be sufficient justification for suspension. The law stands well settled that suspension is not a punishment. It is basically an administrative measure resorted to pending departmental proceedings in the interest of both the employer and the employee as also to facilitate the holding of the departmental proceeding in an unvitiated atmosphere. The charges presently are not so grave as to warrant the suspension of the petitioner to ensure an unvitiated departmental proceeding. The Supreme Court referring to the suspension syndrome in (1999) 3 SCC 679 ( Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Ors.) has held at Paragraph-29 as follows:- “29. Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where 4 officers have been found to be afflicted by a “suspension syndrome and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is there irritability rather than the employee's trivial laps which has often resulted in suspension.....” The order dated 17.9.2010 is therefore quashed but only in so far as the order of suspension is concerned. This Court expresses no opinion on the departmental proceedings which rests in the administrative domain of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner then refers to Paragraph-26 of the writ application to submit that he shall proceed to join the transferred place of posting in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Service Code to be computed from today. Naturally the order of the authorities dated 17.9.2010 bearing No. 1085 shall merit consideration in accordance therewith. The application stands partly allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)