9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the period of suspension for indefinite periods after periodical reviews. In the said case, Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the appellant had initially been suspended by the Suspension Order dated 30.9.2011. This suspension was extended on 28.12.2011 for a further period of 180 days. Then, with effect from 26.6.2012 the suspension was extended for another period of 180 days. Thereafter, the third extension of his suspension was ordered on 21.12.2012, but for a period of 90 days. It came to be followed by the fourth suspension for yet another period of 90 days with effect from 22.3.2013. Thus, he continued to be under suspension continuously from 30.09.2011. The order of suspension dated 11.09.2014 is hereby revoked and the respondent is directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent would submit that as a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the suspension is a deemed suspension and therefore, that order cannot be challenged in this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prolonged suspension is prohibited and it was come to the adverse comments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA, reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119. 6. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, dated 16th February 2015, the Supreme Court has come down heavily on this type of provisions which allow the competent authorities to extend the period of suspension for indefinite periods after periodical reviews. In the said case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement." The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions wherein the right to speedy trial in criminal cases was recognized. It observed that "(t)he legal expectation of expedition and diligence being present at every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in departmental inquiries has been emphasised by this Court on numerous occasions." Thus, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the right of a sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Orders in cases of departmental / disciplinary inquiries also. The Supreme Court held as under: "It seems to us that 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." Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued the following import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us." The principle of right to speedy trial in a criminal case has now been extended to the service law matters and the suspension of a Government servant cannot be continued beyond 90 days if charge sheet (for a departmental enquiry) is not given on time. Moreover, the Supreme Court has directed that even where the charge-sheet is served on time and the suspension is required to be extended by the competent authority, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. The rationale in the above judgment I.e the legal principle laid down in this case is also applicable to employees of public sector undertakings (PSUs) and Government banks, etc. These directions are c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adopted by us." It is noteworthy that in the above case, the Supreme Court had also observed that this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. The court recognized that previous Constitution Benches had been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. It was observed that, however, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension had not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. 7. In view of the above observation, the order of suspension dated 11.09.2014 is hereby revoked and the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
