9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of the order of suspension under Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the suspension of a member of the Indian Forest Service. The main issue was whether the suspension order complied with Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. 2. The respondent, a member of the Indian Forest Service, was suspended during disciplinary proceedings based on two charge-sheets. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the suspension order on the grounds of non-compliance with Rule 3(1). 3. The impugned suspension order cited reasons for suspension, including misuse of funds and irregularities, as per Rule 3(1) of the Rules. The tribunal focused on the requirement that the government must be satisfied it is necessary or desirable to suspend the member. 4. Rule 3(1) outlines the conditions for suspension, emphasizing the need for the government's satisfaction regarding the necessity of suspension during disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal found that this requirement was not met in the impugned suspension order. 5. The tribunal rejected the respondent's claims of mala fides but accepted the argument that the suspension order did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3(1). The tribunal's decision was based on the lack of explicit satisfaction by the Governor in the suspension order. 6. The Supreme Court disagreed with the tribunal's reasoning, stating that the absence of an explicit statement of satisfaction by the Governor did not invalidate the suspension order. The Court highlighted the presumption of regularity in official acts and shifted the burden of proof to the challenging party. 7. The Court referenced a previous case to support its stance that the absence of a recital about the Governor's satisfaction did not automatically render the order invalid. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on whether the condition precedent was fulfilled, regardless of the recital's presence. 8. The Court noted that the respondent's petition did not challenge the suspension order based on the Governor's satisfaction, leading to the conclusion that the order fulfilled Rule 3(1) requirements. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the tribunal's decision and dismissing the petition. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the suspension order was valid under Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, despite the absence of an explicit statement of satisfaction by the Governor. The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in official acts and shifted the burden of proof to the challenging party regarding the fulfillment of conditions precedent.
|
