2018 (5) TMI 2155 - HC - Indian Laws

Suspension of petitioner - accepting illegal gratification - after the period of ninety day, petitioner s suspension was not reviewed - HELD THAT - In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to first respondent to pass a speaking order on petitioner s Representation of 28th March, 2018 ( Annexure P-8 colly. ) within a period of two weeks from today and to convey its fate to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Suspension of petitioner due to criminal case, failure to review suspension, non-response to representations, direction for passing a speaking order on petitioner's representation.

Analysis:

1. Suspension of Petitioner: The judgment mentions that the petitioner was put under suspension following the registration of a criminal case by the CBI against them for accepting illegal gratification. This action was taken through an order dated 14th December, 2017.

2. Failure to Review Suspension: The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that despite representations made on specific dates (8th March, 2018; 28th March, 2018; and 17th April, 2018), the suspension of the petitioner was not reviewed after the ninety-day period. It was highlighted that the first respondent did not respond to these representations, leading to a lack of communication regarding the suspension status.

3. Direction for Passing Speaking Order: Considering the circumstances, the judgment directs the first respondent to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's representation dated 28th March, 2018, within two weeks from the date of the judgment. It further instructs the respondent to convey the decision to the petitioner within a week after passing the order. This direction aims to ensure clarity for the petitioner regarding their suspension and the available legal remedies.

4. Disposal of Petition: The judgment concludes by disposing of the petition and associated applications with the aforementioned directions. It emphasizes the importance of providing a copy of the order directly to the counsel for the involved parties for their information and compliance.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Delhi High Court addresses the issues related to the suspension of the petitioner, the failure to review the suspension, the lack of response to representations, and the specific direction for passing a speaking order on the petitioner's representation. The court's decision aims to uphold procedural fairness and provide the petitioner with clarity and the opportunity to seek legal remedies if necessary.