2016 (3) TMI 1461 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking revocation of suspension order based on the Government Circular issued in Letter No.13519/N/2015-1 dated 23.07.2015 - HELD THAT - In the present case the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.08.2011 and the respondent had enhanced his subsistence allowance on 23.07.2012. Thereafter only on 29.07.2013 he was issued with the charge memo to which it is made clear that he has to face an enquiry. Even after lapse of three years the respondent has not passed a reasoned order of extension of suspension. However with regard to the order of suspension it has been kept pending for a long time. Therefore as per the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANR. 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT and following the letter mentioned supra issued by the Government in this regard this Court is of the view that the prolonged suspension is no longer permissible. Hence this Court finds merit in the contention of the petitioner. The respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner s representation dated 24.02.2016 on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus for suspension order review based on Supreme Court decision and Government Circular.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a government employee, filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 24.02.2016. The petitioner joined service in 1995 and was suspended in 2011 due to a criminal complaint. Despite the charge sheet being filed in 2013, there was no progress in the trial, and the suspension continued without a review. The petitioner relied on a Government Circular issued in 2015 and a Supreme Court decision to argue against the prolonged suspension without a reasoned order for extension.

The petitioner's counsel cited the legal position established by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, emphasizing that suspension orders cannot be prolonged indefinitely. The counsel pointed out that as per the Government Circular, a suspension order should not extend beyond three months without serving the charge sheet or without a reasoned order for extension. The petitioner's case fell under the first situation as the charge memo was issued after more than a year, and the suspension was not reviewed by the respondent.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case, the High Court noted that suspensions should be temporary and of short duration, and their renewal must be based on sound reasoning. In this case, the petitioner was suspended in 2011, and the charge memo was issued in 2013 without a reasoned order for extension. The Court agreed with the petitioner's argument that the prolonged suspension was not permissible under the law and directed the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the respondent must review the suspension order in light of the legal principles and the Government Circular. The Court highlighted the need for timely and reasoned decisions regarding suspension orders to ensure fairness and compliance with legal standards.