9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The legality of the suspension order u/r 10(1)(b) of CCS Rules, 1965 on the grounds of arrest and investigation. Summary: The respondent, an Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, was arrested on bribery charges and subsequently suspended under Rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS Rules, 1965. The respondent filed multiple applications seeking revocation of the suspension order, which were initially dismissed. The Tribunal later allowed the application, stating that the ground for suspension "no longer survives." The Union of India challenged this decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 10 was incorrect. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's narrow view that suspension could only occur during investigation, inquiry, or trial, and held that the respondent could be suspended even after the investigation was over and charges were filed. The Court noted that prosecution sanction had been obtained, and charges were to be framed, indicating the need for suspension. However, considering the respondent had been reinstated for almost two years without any misconduct, the Court decided not to interfere with the suspension order. The Court clarified that if the appellants deemed it necessary to suspend the respondent during the trial, they could do so in accordance with the Rules. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
|
