9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 717 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReview of Suspension Order - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD VERSUS SANJIV RAJAN 1993 (3) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT has held that the order of suspension should not ordinarily be interfered with unless it has been passed mala-fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence connecting the delinquent with the misconduct in question. In the matter of UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL 2013 (11) TMI 1767 - SUPREME COURT , Hon ble Supreme Court considering the scope of judicial review in interference of the suspension order has held that it is not ordinarily open to Court to interfere with the suspension order as it is within exclusive domain of competent authority who can review its suspension order and revoke it. Making the scope of interference clear it has been held that where charges are baseless, mala-fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep delinquent employee out of the job, a case for judicial review is made out. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that there are as many as three charges and only one charge relates to the death of four persons due to the poisonous liquor consumption. Other two charges relate to the other dereliction of duties by the Respondent No. 4. Learned Single Judge appears to have lost sight of the said charge sheet while passing the order under challenge and observing that no departmental enquiry was contemplated against the writ petitioner. If the Respondent No. 4 is entitled to continue at the same place where he was posted at the time of passing the suspension order and committing the alleged misconduct? - HELD THAT - Permitting a delinquent employee to continue at the same place where the Departmental enquiry is held and misconduct is committed, may not be in the interest of the administration or in public interest, therefore, even if the employee concerned is not placed under suspension, then ordinarily it is in the public interest and interest of the administration and also in the interest of fair and transparent enquiry that the employee concerned is transferred from that place. Even otherwise it lies exclusively within the domain of the administration to decide as per the administrative exigency to post or transfer a particular person at a particular place - the direction of the learned Single Judge to post the Respondent No. 4at the same place where he was posted prior to suspension and transfer the appellant in WA 593/2020 to some other place cannot be sustained. Whether learned Single Judge is justified in making observation on merits of the charge which is levelled against the Respondent No. 4? - HELD THAT - The findings given by learned Single Judge on merits of the charge in favour of the Respondent No. 4 were not warranted because the finding in respect of the charge will be recorded by the enquiry officer/competent authority on conclusion of departmental enquiry, therefore, at this stage the Respondent No. 4 cannot be given a clean chit especially when the entire material is not before the court. The writ appeals partially allowed by affirming the direction of the learned Single Judge to the extent it relates to quashing the order of suspension but we are unable to sustain the direction of the learned Single Judge permitting the delinquent Respondent No. 4 to continue at the present place of posting and to transfer or give posting to the appellant in WA No.593/2020 to some other place, hence it is set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the suspension order against Respondent No. 4. 2. Entitlement of Respondent No. 4 to continue at the same place of posting. 3. Appropriateness of the Single Judge's observations on the merits of the charge against Respondent No. 4. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Suspension Order Against Respondent No. 4: The respondent No. 4 was placed under suspension by order dated 6/5/2020 due to alleged misconduct related to the death of four persons from consuming poisonous liquor. The Single Judge quashed the suspension order, labeling it stigmatic and noting the absence of a departmental enquiry. However, the appellate court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in suspension matters, referencing the Supreme Court's stance that suspension orders should not be interfered with unless passed mala-fide or without prima facie evidence. The court noted that a chargesheet was already on record, and a departmental enquiry was indeed contemplated, contrary to the Single Judge's observation. Despite this, the appellate court, considering the nature of the charge and the role of Respondent No. 4, found the suspension unjustified and upheld the quashing of the suspension order. 2. Entitlement of Respondent No. 4 to Continue at the Same Place of Posting: The appellate court disagreed with the Single Judge's direction allowing Respondent No. 4 to continue at his previous posting. Citing the Supreme Court's rulings, it was highlighted that permitting a delinquent employee to remain at the place of alleged misconduct could hinder a fair enquiry and was not in public or administrative interest. The court underscored that it lies within the administration's domain to decide on postings and transfers based on administrative exigencies. Consequently, the direction to reinstate Respondent No. 4 at the same place and transfer the appellant to another location was set aside. 3. Appropriateness of the Single Judge's Observations on the Merits of the Charge Against Respondent No. 4: The appellate court found that the Single Judge's observations on the merits of the charge were unwarranted. It was noted that the enquiry officer or competent authority should determine the findings on the charge upon the conclusion of the departmental enquiry. The court emphasized that giving a clean chit at this stage, without the entire material before the court, was inappropriate. Thus, the observations made by the Single Judge on the merits of the charge were set aside. Conclusion: The appellate court partially allowed the writ appeals by affirming the quashing of the suspension order but set aside the directions permitting Respondent No. 4 to continue at the same place of posting and the transfer of the appellant. The observations on the merits of the charge were also set aside, and it was clarified that the departmental enquiry should proceed uninfluenced by the Single Judge's observations.
|
