2017 (8) TMI 1709 - HC - Indian Laws

Illegal suspension - seeking reinstatement after the expiry of three months - whether in a case where order of suspension is not followed by the service of memorandum of charges/charge-sheet on the delinquent officer within three months, as has been held in Ajay Kumar Choudhary s case 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT , could the respondents still continue the appellant under suspension only because the relevant regulations permitted suspension for a period of six months or even thereafter - HELD THAT - In Ajay Kumar Choudhary s case, it is found that the directions were clear and unambiguous and those were that the suspension order would not extend beyond three months if within that period the memorandum of charges/chargesheet was not served upon the delinquent officer/employee and if the charge-sheet was served, a reasoned order would have to be passed for extension of the suspension - these directions were not made subservient to the rules and regulations as applicable to delinquent officers and employees in individual cases. Admittedly, in the present case, the charges were served upon the petitioner on 18.01.2017, that was beyond the period of three months as envisaged in the judgment and failure to serve the charges within this period would indeed entitle the appellant to reinstatement. The respondents, therefore, by placing reliance upon the PSB Vigilance Manual could not have extended the period of suspension thereafter or invoke its power to review the same for purposes of extending the same. Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant forthwith. It would however be free to transfer the appellant to any other office within or outside the State, so as to prevent any interference in the enquiry being conducted against him - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against suspension order based on delay in issuing chargesheet.
2. Applicability of PSB Vigilance Manual in suspension cases.
3. Interpretation of Apex Court judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case.
4. Review of suspension order and reinstatement.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the suspension order, citing delay in issuing a chargesheet within three months, following the Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment. The respondents argued serious allegations against the appellant, justifying the delay in issuing the chargesheet. The writ court quashed the suspension order after six months had passed, allowing a review as per the PSB Vigilance Manual.

2. The PSB Vigilance Manual stipulates a maximum suspension period of six months, with provisions for exceptional cases and review after release from police custody. The main issue was whether the respondents could continue suspension beyond three months despite not serving charges, as per the Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment.

3. The Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment mandated that suspension couldn't extend beyond three months without serving charges or a reasoned extension order. This directive was not subject to individual rules and regulations. In this case, charges were served after three months, entitling the appellant to reinstatement per the Apex Court's clear directions.

4. The High Court found the impugned judgment conflicted with the Ajay Kumar Choudhary ruling and set it aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant immediately, with the freedom to transfer him to prevent interference in the ongoing inquiry. A subsequent suspension order was quashed as it contradicted the reinstatement directive.

This detailed analysis covers the legal issues, interpretations of relevant judgments, and the court's decision in this case, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the judgment's implications and outcomes.