SC Rules Public Servant Arrested For 48 Hours Faces Deemed Suspension

The Supreme Court ruled that public servants held in custody for over 48 hours face automatic suspension. The bench criticized the reinstatement of a hospital manager involved in a bribery case after his suspension was prematurely revoked.

Supreme Court Ruling on Deemed Suspension

The Supreme Court has observed that a public servant who remains in judicial custody for more than 48 hours following arrest is deemed to be under suspension, without the need for a separate suspension order, while restoring the bail of a Bihar hospital manager accused in a bribery case. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manmohan also expressed concern over the manager's reinstatement at the same hospital and on the same post after his suspension was revoked.

“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 in its November 6 order.

Background of the Case

The apex court was hearing an appeal against a Patna High Court order cancelling the regular bail granted to the appellant by a Sessions Court in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant, who served as Manager/Administrator at Sadar Hospital in Samastipur, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 4,000 for clearing the complainant's pending wages of Rs 36,421. He was arrested and remained in judicial custody for around 15 days before being granted bail by the Sessions Court. The Patna High Court subsequently cancelled the bail and directed his custody.

Setting aside the High Court's order, the top court noted that the cancellation had come nearly a year after the appellant was granted bail. It observed that the High Court appeared to have been influenced by the Sessions Court's observation that the alleged bribe amount was small. While agreeing that the amount of bribe cannot be a relevant consideration in deciding bail, the bench said that, ordinarily, bail should be granted in such cases, having regard to the maximum punishment likely to be imposed, unless the accused has criminal antecedents or the allegations are particularly grave.

Concerns Over Reinstatement

The bench also flagged the appellant's reinstatement after his suspension was revoked. The State informed the top court that the appellant had initially been placed under suspension but the order was subsequently withdrawn.

“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 bench observed. The apex court accordingly set aside the Patna High Court's order and restored the regular bail granted by the Sessions Court.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)