Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court, in its decision dated 18 February 2021, examined the legality of a suspension order passed against a government officer working as a Block Development Officer (BDO) in Bhojpur district. The officer had been accused of accepting a bribe of ₹25,000, for which a vigilance case was registered in 2017. Following his arrest and custody, the officer was suspended.

Initially, the suspension order was confined only to the period of custody. After he was released on bail and rejoined service on 23 March 2017, his suspension was revoked. However, a fresh order was issued on 11 May 2017, again suspending him with effect from the date of his release, on the ground that a criminal case was pending.

The officer challenged this second suspension order before the High Court. His main argument was that the suspension was arbitrary, lacked a legal basis under the applicable rules, and could not be given retrospective effect.

The Court analyzed Rule 9(1) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which governs suspension of government employees. The Rule permits suspension in three circumstances:

1. When a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending.
2. When the government servant is involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
3. When a criminal case is under investigation or trial, provided the competent authority is satisfied that suspension is necessary in public interest.

The High Court found that none of these requirements were satisfied in the petitioner’s case. There was no departmental proceeding, no issue of state security, and the suspension order itself did not record that it was being made in public interest.

As such, the Court held that the order of suspension was arbitrary and violated the petitioner’s legal right to continue in service. It quashed the suspension order and directed reinstatement with all withheld benefits, including salary dues.

The Court also noted that the suspension had already been recalled by the authorities on 17 November 2020, but the petitioner was not assigned work or paid salary. It clarified that while the decision to assign work lay with the authorities, the petitioner was entitled to salary from the date of reinstatement.

Additionally, the Court dealt with a procedural issue: earlier, a cost of ₹1,000 had been imposed on the State for not filing its counter affidavit in time. Since the affidavit was filed the next day and the explanation was found satisfactory, the Court exonerated the State from this penalty.

Ultimately, the writ application was allowed, giving full relief to the petitioner.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• For Government Employees: This case reassures employees that suspension cannot be arbitrary. It must be justified under statutory rules, and authorities must show reasons, especially the “public interest” element.
• For Government Departments: The judgment highlights that suspension orders must be “speaking orders” (i.e., they must explain the reasons clearly). Otherwise, they risk being struck down by courts.
• For the Public: It reflects judicial scrutiny over executive actions, ensuring fairness and protection of employees’ rights while criminal trials are pending.
• For Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Efforts: The judgment clarifies that a pending vigilance case does not automatically justify suspension unless conditions under the Rules are met.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Issue 1: Can an officer be suspended merely because a criminal case is pending?
  • Decision: No, unless the authority records satisfaction that suspension is necessary in public interest under Rule 9(1)(c).
• Issue 2: Was the retrospective suspension valid?
  • Decision: No, suspension cannot operate retrospectively without justification.
• Issue 3: Was the suspension order arbitrary?
  • Decision: Yes, since it did not mention any departmental proceeding, security threat, or public interest. Hence, it was quashed.
• Issue 4: Was the officer entitled to salary and benefits after reinstatement?
  • Decision: Yes, the Court directed payment of all dues withheld unlawfully.
• Issue 5: Should cost imposed for late filing of counter affidavit remain?
  • Decision: No, cost of ₹1,000 was waived as the explanation was satisfactory.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• CWJC No. 8229 of 2014 (Patna High Court) — relied upon to show that suspension must record “public interest” to be valid.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• CWJC No. 8229 of 2014 (Patna High Court) — same principle noted above.

Case Title

Petitioner v. State of Bihar & Ors. (names anonymised as per editorial policy)

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21815 of 2018

Citation(s)

2021(1) PLJR 821

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For the petitioner: Md. Anisur Rahman
• For the respondents/State: Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11

Link to Judgment

MTUjMjE4MTUjMjAxOCMxI04=-W5QBp711gzo=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.