2019 (11) TMI 1798 - HC - Indian Laws

Prolonged suspension - exercise of discretion - reliance placed upon ratio of the judgment in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANR. 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - The impact on the moral fibre of the society and the faith of the people should not be diluted on account of any occasional instances of misconduct. At the same time, officers should be guarded against ungenerous and unfavourable criticism on the basis of any invented tales, but their conduct should not be open to any genuine suspicion. The charges levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner in the present case can be assessed either way on the basis of the evidence that may be collected during the disciplinary proceedings or even during the criminal trial. This Court, therefore, should be cautious enough to take care while passing an order of reinstatement about the gravity of the allegations and the possibility of the delinquent in either trying to influence or delay the proceedings and gain advantage only by a sheer passage of time. The concept of human rights and protection of Article 21 should not altogether eclipse the circumstances of a case, where serious graft charges are pending adjudication. It would be appropriate that in such cases and on peculiar facts, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice to ensure that public faith and confidence is not diluted and consequently, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge directing posting of the respondent/writ petitioner against a non-sensitive post to the extent that he shall be treated to be on leave with salary for a period of three months from today. The appellant State will be bound to conclude the enquiry proceedings and the respondent/writ petitioner will be bound to co-operate with the same in order to bring the disciplinary proceedings to a logical conclusion. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Quashing of suspension order based on prolonged suspension
- Impact of prolonged suspension on department's functioning and public perception
- Conflict between morality and law in cases of corruption charges against officers
- Application of law in cases of prolonged suspension and disciplinary proceedings
- Consideration of precedents and judgments in deciding on suspension orders

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around the appeal arising from a case where the respondent succeeded before the Single Judge based on the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India. The appellant State challenges the quashing of the suspension order, arguing that reinstating the respondent on a non-sensitive post would hinder departmental functioning and set a wrong precedent, especially considering the serious corruption charges against the respondent, a Police Officer. The conflict between morality and law arises in extending protection to delinquents facing such charges, potentially demoralizing the police force.

The respondent's defense relies on legal protection, citing judgments and precedents to support the Single Judge's decision. However, the Court notes the absence of references to certain Apex Court decisions in the judgments cited. The Court considers the delay caused by the State in processing disciplinary matters and emphasizes the need to balance the rights of the officer with the gravity of the charges and the impact on public perception and faith in the system.

Various judgments and precedents are discussed, highlighting the principles of criminal law in departmental proceedings and the need for diligence and expedition. The Court emphasizes the importance of considering all relevant facts, including the nature of charges, in deciding on suspension orders. The judgment underscores the trustworthiness and integrity expected from disciplined officers and the need to maintain public faith and confidence in the system.

In the final decision, the Court modifies the Single Judge's order, directing the respondent to be on leave with salary for three months, pending the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. The respondent is required to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings, ensuring a logical conclusion. The Court clarifies that any criminal trial proceedings are not within the scope of the petition. The judgment aims to balance the rights of the officer with the need to uphold public faith and confidence, emphasizing the gravity of corruption charges in such cases.

Overall, the judgment provides a nuanced analysis of the issues surrounding prolonged suspension in cases of corruption charges against officers, considering legal precedents, the impact on departmental functioning, and the balance between morality and law in such situations.