9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1393 - HC - Indian LawsRevocation of Suspension order - allegation against the delinquent was of demand and acceptance of bribe - HELD THAT - In the case on hand the writ petitioner/non-appellant is facing a criminal case for the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. He was caught red-handed accepting the bribe. The learned Single Judge passed the judgment under appeal without referring to the Regulations applicable to the case and without realizing the seriousness of the offence. In the case of STATE OF ORISSA VERSUS BIMAL KUMAR MOHANTY 1994 (2) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court caused interference with the interim order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal against the order of suspension despite registration of the criminal case in reference to allegation of acquisition of property disproportionate to the sources. The Supreme Court held that exercise of judicial review to interfere with a suspension order which has been passed despite a vigilance investigation which led to registration of a criminal case against the delinquent is thus uncalled for. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside - it is directed to expedite the criminal proceedings against the delinquent and if it is not concluded within a reasonable time then it would be open to the delinquent employee to make a representation to recall the suspension order which otherwise cannot be continued beyond a reasonable period as it is pending for last two years - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the suspension order. 2. Applicability of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India. 3. Interpretation of service rules and Cr.P.C. provisions in suspension cases. 4. Consideration of the seriousness of charges in suspension. 5. Periodical review and revocation of suspension orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Suspension Order: The writ appeal challenges the judgment dated 20.7.2021, which allowed the writ petition against the suspension order dated 26.7.2019. The writ petitioner was suspended after being caught red-handed accepting a bribe, and a criminal case was registered against him. The learned Single Judge set aside the suspension mainly because the charge-sheet was not filed within three months, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India. 2. Applicability of the Judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India: The appellants argued that the learned Single Judge erroneously relied on Ajay Kumar Choudhary, which was decided with reference to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., not applicable to service matters. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary directed that suspension should not extend beyond three months if the charge-sheet is not served. However, this analogy was based on Cr.P.C. provisions, which govern criminal proceedings, not service rules. The appellants contended that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations do not provide for automatic revocation of suspension if the charge-sheet is not filed within three months. 3. Interpretation of Service Rules and Cr.P.C. Provisions in Suspension Cases: The court noted that the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary was distinguished by various courts, including the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A. Srinivasan's case. The regulations governing the employee do not stipulate a specific period for suspension but require a periodical review. The court emphasized that the service rules and government guidelines, not Cr.P.C. provisions, should guide suspension matters. 4. Consideration of the Seriousness of Charges in Suspension: The court highlighted the seriousness of the allegations against the delinquent, involving demand and acceptance of a bribe. The learned Single Judge's judgment did not adequately consider the gravity of the charges. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including R.P. Kapur and Bimal Kumar Mohanty, which upheld suspension in cases involving serious misconduct or criminal charges. The court reiterated that suspension is not a punishment but a measure to prevent the delinquent from potentially impeding the investigation or inquiry. 5. Periodical Review and Revocation of Suspension Orders: The court noted that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations require periodical review of suspension orders and consultation with the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in cases involving corruption. The government instructions dated 26.4.2016 clarified that the three-month limit for suspension applies only to non-vigilance and non-criminal cases. The court directed that the criminal proceedings against the delinquent should be expedited and allowed the delinquent to make a representation to recall the suspension if the proceedings are not concluded within a reasonable time. Conclusion: The court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the need for a periodical review of the suspension order. The court directed the appellants to expedite the criminal proceedings and allowed the delinquent to seek revocation of the suspension if the proceedings are unduly delayed.
|
