2015 (6) TMI 592 - SC - Indian Laws

Extensions of Suspension of appellant from service - disciplinary proceedings - issuance of incorrect NOCs - Held that - prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. If Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. Currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. Previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Appellant's prolonged suspension.
2. Tribunal's power to limit the government's authority on suspension.
3. Right to a speedy trial and its application to departmental inquiries.
4. Compliance with natural justice in suspension orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Appellant's Prolonged Suspension:
The Appellant's suspension, initiated on 30.9.2011, was repeatedly extended without the issuance of a chargesheet or memorandum of charges, leading to an appeal. The Appellant was initially suspended due to the issuance of factually incorrect NOCs based on notes prepared by subordinate staff. Despite multiple extensions of the suspension, disciplinary proceedings were delayed, prompting the Appellant to challenge the suspension's legality. The Supreme Court emphasized that suspension before the formulation of charges should be temporary and of short duration, highlighting that prolonged suspension without sound reasoning renders it punitive.

2. Tribunal's Power to Limit the Government's Authority on Suspension:
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had directed that if no charge memo was issued within a specific period, the Appellant should be reinstated. The Delhi High Court overturned this, asserting that the Tribunal had overstepped its authority by substituting its judgment for that of the Executive Government. The Supreme Court, however, underscored the necessity of a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, emphasizing that indefinite suspension without charges is unjustifiable. The Court directed that suspension orders should not extend beyond three months without serving a chargesheet, and any extension must be supported by a reasoned order.

3. Right to a Speedy Trial and its Application to Departmental Inquiries:
The judgment extensively discussed the right to a speedy trial, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, and its applicability to departmental inquiries. The Court cited several precedents, including Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab and Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, affirming that the right to a speedy trial encompasses all stages of legal proceedings. The Court highlighted that protracted suspensions and delays in disciplinary proceedings violate this fundamental right, causing undue prejudice and stress to the accused.

4. Compliance with Natural Justice in Suspension Orders:
The Court examined whether the principles of natural justice were followed in extending the Appellant's suspension. It was found that reasons for each extension were elaborately recorded, satisfying the requirement of natural justice. However, the Court noted that the reliance on natural justice principles does not justify indefinite suspension. The Court reiterated that suspension should be of short duration and supported by sound reasoning, failing which it becomes punitive.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed that suspension orders should not exceed three months without serving a chargesheet, and any extension must be justified with a reasoned order. The judgment emphasized the right to a speedy trial and fair procedure, criticizing the norm of indefinite suspensions. The Appellant's case was disposed of with the provision to challenge continued suspension through judicial review, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and human dignity.