The Supreme Court has reiterated that a public servant detained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours is deemed to be under suspension under the applicable service rules, even if the authorities do not issue a separate suspension order.
The observation came while the court was hearing an appeal filed by a hospital administrator accused of demanding a bribe at Bihar's Sadar Hospital in Samastipur. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan also expressed concern over the State government's decision to reinstate the accused at the same hospital and in the same position after revoking his suspension.
The bench set aside a Patna High Court order cancelling the administrator's regular bail and restored the bail granted earlier by the Sessions Court.
The case, titled Vishwajeet Singh alias Bishwajeet Ramanand v. State of Bihar and Others, arose from allegations that the hospital administrator had demanded Rs 4,000 from a complainant for clearing pending wages amounting to Rs 36,421. The Supreme Court's order, however, concerned the cancellation of bail and did not determine the accused's guilt.
Supreme Court flags reinstatement at same hospital
The bench drew attention to the fact that the appellant had spent approximately 15 days in judicial custody following his arrest. It said that under the applicable service rules, detention for more than 48 hours automatically attracts deemed suspension, without requiring a specific order from the competent authority.
"There is one disturbing feature which we should not ignore. It appears, that upon arrest, the appellant accused was in judicial custody for almost a period of 15 days. Once a public servant is arrested and remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, there is a deemed suspension. He being a public servant, he could be said to have been placed under deemed suspension. No specific order is required to be passed in this regard," the bench observed.
The State informed the Supreme Court that the appellant had initially been placed under suspension after his arrest, but the suspension was subsequently revoked. The court was also told that he had been posted again at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, in the same position he had held before his arrest.
The bench expressed concern over the decision, observing that the administrator had returned to the very hospital where the alleged bribery incident had taken place.
"We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in fact the appellant was placed under suspension but later, the suspension order came to be revoked, and, shockingly, he has been once again posted in the very same hospital and that too on the very same post. This aspect shall be looked into by the State at the earliest," the court said.
The Supreme Court recorded the State's submission and asked the authorities to examine the reinstatement at the earliest. It did not, however, order the administrator's dismissal or direct that he be suspended afresh.
Bail restored after Patna High Court cancelled Sessions Court order
The appellant had been serving as Manager/Administrator at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, when he was booked under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
According to the allegation, he demanded Rs 4,000 from a complainant for processing wages of Rs 36,421. Following his arrest, the Sessions Court granted him regular bail.
The complainant subsequently challenged the bail order before the Patna High Court, which cancelled it and directed the administrator to be taken into custody. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, challenging the High Court's decision.
While examining the matter, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had intervened almost a year after the Sessions Court had granted bail.
The bench observed that, prima facie, the tenor of the High Court's order suggested that it had been influenced by the Sessions Court's reference to the alleged bribe amount as being paltry while granting bail.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the amount of the alleged bribe was not, by itself, a relevant consideration for deciding whether bail should be granted. However, it said that this did not necessarily require the accused to be taken back into custody.
Court explains approach to bail in corruption cases
The bench also set out its view on the general approach courts should adopt while considering bail in cases of this nature.
"Ordinarily, in cases of this type, having regard to the maximum punishment that the trial court would impose, ultimately, if the accused is held to be guilty, bail is to be granted. It is only when there are criminal antecedents or the facts are very gross that the court may decline to exercise its discretion in favour of the accused," the bench observed.
It further noted that although the High Court could have questioned the Sessions Court's consideration of the alleged bribe amount, it could still have allowed the appellant to remain on bail.
The bench consequently held that the High Court's order cancelling bail should be set aside and the original bail order passed by the Sessions Court restored.
"We are of the view that we should set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and restore the original bail order passed by the Sessions Court. We order accordingly," it said.
Background of the bribery allegations
The complaint concerned pending wages of Rs 36,421 allegedly due to a worker associated with the 102 ambulance service at Sadar Hospital. The hospital administrator was accused of demanding Rs 4,000 to facilitate the release of the payment.
The allegation led to the registration of a vigilance case under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was subsequently arrested and remained in judicial custody for approximately 15 days before being granted bail by the Sessions Court.
The Supreme Court's intervention restores that bail arrangement while leaving the corruption allegations to be decided through the criminal proceedings.
The court has also asked the Bihar government to examine how the administrator, after being placed under suspension and subsequently reinstated, came to be posted once again at the same hospital and in the same position.