9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he is working in the Electricity Board as a training Helper. A criminal case came to be filed by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) in Crime No.6 of 2015 for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was shown as A2 in the said case. Hence the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 01.05.2015. As the criminal case was pending and the petitioner was under prolonged suspension, he made a representation for revocation of his suspension. The third appellant herein has rejected the said application and has passed the impugned order stating that it is not feasible to revoke the suspension till the petitioner is exonerated from the criminal case. The said order was challenged before the writ court. 3. The learned single Judge, after hearing both the parties, elaborately discussed the issue in the light of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court and held that an employee cannot be kept under a prolonged suspension and subsistence allowance should not be paid to him without extracting any work from him and that such an exercise will drain the public exchequer. The relevant paragraphs in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate Government counsel is that the writ court, after granting a direction to the criminal court to conclude the proceedings in a time bound manner, should not have directed revocation of suspension, as the result of the criminal proceedings itself would give a solution to the issue as to whether the suspension of the petitioner is to be revoked or not. It is the further contention of the learned State Government Counsel that the suspension of the writ petitioner is only after the DVAC report and the criminal case registered against the respondent. The appellants took action against the respondent, while he was caught red handed by receiving bribe from a person. As the respondent was charged with serious offence of corruption, for which punishment may even extend to ten years, he cannot be inducted or retained in the department, pending disposal of the trial, as the very conduct and reputation of the respondent are questionable. The effect of retention of such person in service pending trial would demoralize the other servants and frustrate the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In support of his contention, the learned State Government Counsel relied on the decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is pending. In the meanwhile, the delinquent has been under prolonged suspension for more than six years with payment of salary in the form of subsistence allowance. As per the provision, the petitioner would be entitled to be paid 75% of his salary as subsistence allowance, after a period of six months from the date of his suspension. Instead of paying 75% of the salary by way of subsistence allowance without extracting any work from the petitioner, he could be posted in a non-sensitive post and salary could be paid by extracting work from him. Besides, the trial in the criminal case also has not yet been completed. Neither the department nor the petitioner is in a position to say as to how long it is likely to take for the completion of the trial. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is kept under suspension continuously by paying the salary in the form of subsistence allowance, for no work, it will definitely drain the public exchequer. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 21, has held thus: 21. We, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Respondent are serious in nature. However, the point is whether the continued suspension of the first Respondent for a prolonged period is justified. 25. The first Respondent has been under suspension for more than six years. While releasing the first Respondent on bail, liberty was given to the investigating agency to approach the Court in case he indulged in tampering with the evidence. Admittedly, no complaint is made by the CBI in that regard. Even now the Appellant has no case that there is any specific instance of any attempt by the first Respondent to tamper with evidence. 26. In the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held on 27.06.2016, it was mentioned that the first Respondent is capable of exerting pressure and influencing witnesses and there is every likelihood of the first Respondent misusing office if he is reinstated as Inspector General of Police. Only on the basis of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting, the Principal Secretary, Home (SC) Department ordered extension of the period of suspension for a further period of 180 days beyond 09.07.2016 vide order dated 06.07.2016. 27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15. Considering all these facts and in the light of the judgments quoted before the writ court as well as this court, the learned single Judge has held that an employee cannot be kept under a prolonged suspension just because there is a criminal case pending against him and has categorically came to a conclusion that the subsistence allowance should not be paid to him without extracting any work from him. Hence the learned single Judge directed the appellants to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 17.09.2019, in the light of the judgments referred supra and pass orders in a time bound manner and has also made an observation that the second appellant may consider posting the petitioner in some non-sensitive post and extract work from the petitioner rather than paying the subsistence allowance by keeping the petitioner idle. The learned single Judge also further directed the trial court to complete the criminal proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. From the e-Courts website, we found that C.C. No.2 of 2017 is pending and it has been adjourned to 03.09.2021, to summon further witness. It is to be noted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
