1994 (2) TMI 307 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Legality of the suspension order.
3. Tribunal's interference with the suspension order.
4. Applicability of Rule 12 of Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
5. Precedents on suspension pending inquiry or investigation.

Summary:

1. Delay in filing the appeal:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal.

2. Legality of the suspension order:
The respondent, while serving as Manager of Orissa State Guest House, was found to have committed serious financial irregularities and misappropriation amounting to Rs. 163.59 lakhs. Consequently, the Government decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings and suspended the respondent on March 17, 1993. Further, a raid on September 3, 1993, revealed disproportionate assets worth Rs. 11.44 lakhs, leading to another suspension on September 28, 1993, under Crime No. 46 u/s 3(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

3. Tribunal's interference with the suspension order:
The Tribunal initially directed not to suspend the respondent and later suspended the Government's suspension order. The appellant argued that the Tribunal unjustifiably interfered with the suspension orders despite being apprised of the serious allegations.

4. Applicability of Rule 12 of Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules:
Rule 12 empowers the appointing authority to suspend an employee pending disciplinary proceedings or investigation of any criminal offence. The Supreme Court emphasized that suspension is not a punishment but a preventive measure to ensure the integrity of the inquiry or investigation.

5. Precedents on suspension pending inquiry or investigation:
The Court cited several precedents, including R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra, V.P. Gidroniya v. State of M.P, and Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs v. Tarak Nath Ghosh, which established that an employer can suspend an employee pending inquiry or investigation into misconduct. The Court reiterated that suspension should be based on the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was unjustified in interfering with the suspension orders given the serious allegations against the respondent. The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's orders were set aside, emphasizing that suspension is a step in aid of the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and the matter was to proceed based on legal evidence and according to law.