9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 2120 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of the charge memo - continuance of Respondent No. 1 under suspension - tampering with the witness - Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 and Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969. Validity of the Charge-Memo - HELD THAT - Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 prescribes a procedure for imposing major penalties. A major penalty specified in Rule 6 cannot be imposed except after holding an enquiry in the manner prescribed in Rule 8. Where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against a member of the service Under Rule 8 the disciplinary authority shall draw up or caused to be drawn up the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct Article of charge. The Rule further provides for an opportunity to be given to the delinquent to submit his explanation the appointment of an inquiring authority and the procedure to be followed for imposition of a penalty with which we are not concerned in this case - There is no doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu is the disciplinary authority. The authority to act on behalf of the State Government as per the Business Rules is the Minister for Home Department. It is clear that the approval of the disciplinary authority was taken for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also clear from the affidavit that no approval was sought from the disciplinary authority at the time when the charge memo was issued to the delinquent officer. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant is that approval of the disciplinary authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings was sufficient and there was no need for another approval for issuance of charge memo. The basis for such submission is that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage - It is also settled law that if the Rule requires something to be done in a particular manner it should be done either in the same manner or not at all. Deemed suspension Under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services Rules for being in custody for a period of more than 48 hours - HELD THAT - Periodic reviews were conducted for his continuance under suspension. The recommendations of the Review Committees did not favour his reinstatement due to which he is still under suspension. Mr. P. Chidambaram learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent fairly submitted that we can proceed on the basis that the criminal trial is pending. There cannot be any dispute regarding the power or jurisdiction of the State Government for continuing the first Respondent under suspension pending criminal trial. There is no doubt that the allegations made against the first Respondent are serious in nature. However the point is whether the continued suspension of the first Respondent for a prolonged period is justified. The first Respondent has been under suspension for more than six years. While releasing the first Respondent on bail liberty was given to the investigating agency to approach the Court in case he indulged in tampering with the evidence. Admittedly no complaint is made by the CBI in that regard. Even now the Appellant has no case that there is any specific instance of any attempt by the first Respondent to tamper with evidence. Thus no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first Respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial - appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the charge memo issued to the first Respondent. 2. Continuation of the first Respondent under suspension. Detailed Analysis: Validity of the Charge Memo: 1. Background and Procedural History: - The first Respondent, a member of the Indian Police Service, challenged his suspension and the charge memo dated 29.10.2013. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) revoked his suspension but refused to quash the charge memo. - The High Court of Madras upheld the revocation of suspension and quashed the disciplinary proceedings, declaring the charge memo as non est in law. The State of Tamil Nadu appealed this judgment. 2. Legal Framework: - Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 mandates that the disciplinary authority must "draw up or cause to be drawn up" the charge memo. - The disciplinary authority, as per Rule 2(b), is the authority competent to impose penalties specified in Rule 6. 3. Contentions: - The Appellant argued that the approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings included the approval of the charge memo, citing Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351. - The Respondent contended that the charge memo was invalid as it was not approved by the disciplinary authority, and relied on the judgment in B.V. Gopinath. 4. Judgment Analysis: - The Supreme Court affirmed that the approval of the disciplinary authority for the charge memo is mandatory, as per Rule 8(4). The Court found that the charge memo issued without such approval is invalid. - The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of a charge memo are at the same stage. - The Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the charge memo but granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh charge memo after obtaining the necessary approval. Continuation of Suspension: 1. Background and Procedural History: - The first Respondent was placed under suspension on 10.05.2012 after being arrested and detained for more than 48 hours. His suspension was periodically reviewed and extended. - The CAT directed the revocation of suspension, which was upheld by the High Court. 2. Contentions: - The Appellant argued that the first Respondent's reinstatement would not be in public interest and could adversely affect the ongoing trial. - The Respondent argued that there was no material evidence of any attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and that prolonged suspension was unjustified. 3. Judgment Analysis: - The Supreme Court noted that the first Respondent had been under suspension for more than six years without any complaint from the CBI regarding tampering with evidence. - The Court referred to Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, which criticized protracted suspensions and emphasized that suspension must be for a short duration. - The Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the suspension and that reinstatement would not threaten a fair trial. It allowed the State to appoint the first Respondent in a non-sensitive post. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the charge memo due to lack of approval from the disciplinary authority and directed that the first Respondent's suspension be revoked, allowing for his reinstatement in a non-sensitive post. The appeals were disposed of with these observations.
|
