9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1683 - HC - Indian LawsDeemed suspension - Whether any departmental inquiry has been initiated against the respondent? - whether any charge sheet has been filed in the criminal court from the date of registration of the FIR against the respondent? - HELD THAT - While there can be no quarrel to the proposition that merely because a period of suspension is long that by itself cannot be a ground to withdraw the order of suspension - the decisions of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank 1997 (3) TMI 569 - SUPREME COURT and in Rajiv Kumar 2003 (7) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The present case can be decided on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT . In this case the respondent was arrested on 20.09.2013 based on an FIR No. 16/2013. He was thereafter placed under deemed suspension. The respondent was released on bail on 01.11.2013. Till date neither any departmental proceedings have been initiated against him by the petitioners nor a charge-sheet has been filed in the criminal court. There are no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal which would require us to interfere in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No ground is made out to entertain this petition - petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order quashing suspension after arrest and pending criminal case, Application of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 for suspension, Jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on suspension, Interpretation of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. in context of suspension orders. Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing the suspension of a Medical Officer after arrest in a corruption case. The Tribunal directed the officer's posting to prevent tampering with evidence and required a reasoned order for any extension of suspension if a charge sheet was filed. The officer was released on bail but not allowed to resume duty, leading to deemed suspension under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. 2. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction as the officer faced a pending FIR by the Anti Corruption Branch and the suspension was valid under Supreme Court precedents. Citing Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar and Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, the petitioner contended that the suspension was necessary due to the corruption allegations. 3. The Court noted that no departmental inquiry or charge sheet had been initiated against the officer since his arrest in 2013. While acknowledging the validity of long suspensions if necessary, the Court found the cited Supreme Court judgments inapplicable to the case. 4. Relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, the Court highlighted the three-month limit on suspension without serving a Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet. As no such action had been taken against the officer, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to quash the suspension. 5. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order was in line with the law laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, as no grounds were found to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.
|
