2016 (11) TMI 1745 - HC - Indian Laws

Suspension order - deemed suspension - respondent would submit that as a criminal case is pending against the petitioner the suspension is a deemed suspension and therefore that order cannot be challenged in this writ petition - HELD THAT - In the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANR. 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court has come down heavily on this type of provisions which allow the competent authorities to extend the period of suspension for indefinite periods after periodical reviews. In the said case Ajay Kumar Choudhary the appellant had initially been suspended by the Suspension Order dated 30.9.2011. This suspension was extended on 28.12.2011 for a further period of 180 days. Then with effect from 26.6.2012 the suspension was extended for another period of 180 days. Thereafter the third extension of his suspension was ordered on 21.12.2012 but for a period of 90 days. It came to be followed by the fourth suspension for yet another period of 90 days with effect from 22.3.2013. Thus he continued to be under suspension continuously from 30.09.2011. The order of suspension dated 11.09.2014 is hereby revoked and the respondent is directed to post the petitioner in any one of the non-sensitive posts. The respondent is also directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enquiry shall proceed dehors the pendency of the criminal case. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to suspension order based on prolonged suspension duration and violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 11.09.2014, arguing that the prolonged suspension was unjustified. The respondent contended that the suspension was deemed due to a pending criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner cited the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union Of India, where the Supreme Court criticized prolonged suspensions as punitive in nature. The Supreme Court emphasized that suspensions should be temporary and not extended indefinitely without sound reasoning. The Court highlighted the right to a speedy trial in criminal cases and applied it to service law matters, directing that a suspension cannot exceed three months if the charge sheet is not served promptly. Even if the charge sheet is timely, a reasoned order must be passed for any extension of suspension. The judgment's principles were extended to public sector employees and government banks. The Government of India issued an Office Memorandum incorporating the Supreme Court's directions to all Ministries and Departments regarding suspension guidelines.

The High Court revoked the suspension order dated 11.09.2014, directing the respondent to reassign the petitioner to a non-sensitive post and conclude the inquiry within four months independently of the criminal case's status. The Court emphasized the need to safeguard human dignity, ensure a speedy trial, and maintain the government's prosecution interests. The judgment aligned with the Supreme Court's stance on setting limits on suspension durations to uphold justice and prevent undue delays in disciplinary proceedings. The writ petition was allowed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.