9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... technic, Nagpur expired during the pendency of this writ petition and, therefore, the present Respondents 1A to 8H were brought on record. The original Respondent was prosecuted for misappropriation of the cash of Rs. 5702.42/and was charged under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 65/86. Pursuant to the registration of the offence, the original Respondent was in police custody from 3-9-1975 to 6-9-1975. Thereafter, he remained absent and did not report on duty till 9-3-1981. The Petitioners took out an order dated 6-4-1981 suspending him from the services with effect from 9-3-1981 i.e. from the date on which he joined on duty. The original Respondent was acquitted from the criminal case as he was not found guilty for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has submitted that the original Respondent after his release from the police custody i.e. on 6-9-1975 did not report the office and he remained absent throughout till 9-3-1981. The Petitioners in the Departmental Enquiry found the original Respondent guilty for serious misconduct because he did not submit any application for leave. He remained absent throughout without intimation and, therefore, he was not qualified to get the salary for the period of absence. The action taken by the Petitioners under Rule 3 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 is legal and decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal of regularising the said period as a period of suspension is devoid of merit and is to be set aside. 3. The learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me into force automatically and the order of suspension required to be passed by an appointing authority. Apparently, one may find a force in the submissions of the learned AGP for the Petitioners as the said rule speaks about placing a Government servant under suspension by an order of appointing authority. Therefore, it may stand to reason that subject to the order passed by the appointing authority the deeming provision will come into effect. One may think whether the Rule leaves discretion to the appointing authority to initiate the action of suspension. However, this shadow of doubt is cleared by the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o so. 7. The same view is adopted by the Division Bench of our High Court in Anami Narayan Roy v. Suprakash Chakravarthy and Ors. (supra). 8. In the present case the original Respondent was deemed to be suspended on 6-9-1975 since he completed 48 hours in the police custody and the said order was never modified or revoked by the Petitioners till the original Respondent was acquitted on 4-5-1987. After his acquittal, he was reinstated in service. The order of suspension dated 6-4-1981 with effect from 9-3-1981 cannot be said to be de jure an order of suspension. In view of the deeming provisions under the said Rules, the authority had no discretion whether to pass the order of suspension or not under the said Rule as suspension must be deeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
