9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant was allowed by the writ court mainly relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291. It was mainly on the ground that if a delinquent employee is suspended from service on registration of a criminal case or in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and if charge-sheet or charge memo is not filed or served on the delinquent employee within three months, the order of suspension has to be revoked. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delinquent employee was suspended by the order dated 26.7.2019 when he was caught red-handed accepting bribe. A criminal case was registered against him on 26.7.2019. Looking to the serious allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe and the writ petitioner/non-appellant having been caught red-handed, he was placed under suspension and the representation to recall the order of suspension was not accepted looking to the gravity and seriousness of the allegation. 4. The learned Single Judge ignored the allegation levelled against the delinquent while passing the judgment causing interference with the order of suspension mainly on the ground that the charge-shee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given within three months. Even after drawing the aforesaid analogy, the Apex Court did not cause interference with the order of suspension in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) for the reason that charge-sheet has been filed therein. Thus, the employee was given liberty to challenge the continuous suspension, if he so chooses. Without analyzing the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge caused interference with the order of suspension. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has made a reference to the Apex Court judgments in the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and others v. Tarak Nath Ghosh, (1971) 1 SCC 734 and State of Orissa and others v. Shiva Parashad Das, (1985) 2 SCC 65. Learned counsel has made further reference to the Apex Court judgments in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126; Secretary to Government and another v. K. Munniappan, (1997) 4 SCC 255; Gurpal Singh v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, (2012) 13 SCC 94; State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, (2018) 17 SCC 677, and State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another, (2016) 9 SCC 491. 7. The judgments aforesaid have been relied to buttress the arguments raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). In the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), three months' time was provided for service or filing of charge memo or charge-sheet, as the case may be, and if the charge memo or charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order was directed to be passed for the extension of the period of suspension. 12. The challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been made not only by referring to the seriousness of the charges and pending criminal case against the delinquent, but after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) which is said to have been decided mainly in reference to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., though the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are not applicable in service matters. It is also on the ground that the judgment of the Five-Judge Bench in the case of R.P. Kapur (supra) was not cited before the court that decided the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). It is further pleaded that the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) was distinguished by the Apex Court itself and even by the Division Bench of this Court. It is with the argument that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence to the judgment of another Division Bench of this court in the case of Director General of Police v. T. Kamarajan [Judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed in W.A. No. 3957 of 2019] was also given, wherein the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) was distinguished to hold that the said judgment does not lay down an absolute proposition that an order of suspension cannot go beyond three months. Paragraphs 7 to 11 of the judgment in A. Srinivasan (supra) are quoted hereunder for ready reference: "7. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the order of suspension is liable to be revoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. The undisputed position, in this case, is that criminal proceedings were initiated against the Respondent on the basis of the trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. Such proceedings are admittedly pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai in S.C. No. 53 of 2018. Therefore, this is clearly a case wherein a charge sheet was filed and the criminal process is underway. The law relating to suspension orders and their revocation should be examined against this backgro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper legislation, is bad in law and the review of the order of suspension by the authority without giving any distinction of the category of cases shall be made as a mandatory requirement by prescribing a period of review, otherwise, there will be a serious prejudice and continued apathy over the issue of keeping the Government servant for an unending period under suspension.' 9. The sheet anchor of the Respondent's case is the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Therefore, it is necessary to extract paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof which are as under: '21. We, therefore, direct that the 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 Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three months would not apply as the appellant had been served with a charge sheet. The appellant had only been given the liberty to challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, if so advised, and it was clarified that the action of the respondents in continuing suspension would be subject to judicial review. In our view, the learned Single Bench erred in setting aside the suspension placing reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). 10. It is well settled that a judgment is to be understood in the context of the facts in which the judgment is rendered. Sentences in a judgment cannot be read in the same manner as a statute and in any case, words and sentences in a judgment cannot be read out of context. In Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, cited by Mr. S. Saji Bino, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, a Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held as under: '9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and does not warrant interference. On the other hand, especially in light of the above direction, the revocation of the suspension on the ground that it is prolonged is clearly unsustainable. The consequential direction to post the Respondent in a non-sensitive post is also not sustainable especially in view of the fact that the Respondent is an Assistant Engineer and it is difficult to find a post that may be termed non-sensitive in that cadre. Therefore, we allow the appeal in part insofar as it directs the Appellants to revoke the suspension and to post the Respondent in a nonsensitive post. On the other hand, we affirm the impugned order to the extent that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai, has been directed to conclude the criminal proceedings within a period of four months, albeit with the qualification that the said period shall run from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in this appeal." 15. The issue is required to be considered on facts and in the light of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations where there is no provision to deem revocation of the order of suspension if it goes beyond the period of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree months of registration of the criminal case, rather in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) itself the order of suspension was not interfered because charge-sheet was later on filed, though after three months since the date of initial suspension of the delinquent therein. 18. In the case of Bimal Kumar Mohanty (supra), 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. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court referred to the earlier decision of the Larger Bench in R.P. Kapur (supra). Paragraphs 7 and 10 to 13 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder: "7. A Constitution Bench of this Court three decades ago in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787 laid the law that: 'The general principle therefore is that an emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a member of the All India Service should be dealt with differently. It would not be proper to interpret the Rules, which form a self-contained Code, by reference to the provisions of other rules even if they were made by or under the authority of the President of India.' (Quoted from the SCR Headnote) 11. This Court in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 483 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 67 : (1993) 25 ATC 764] held that: (SCC pp. 483-84, headnote) 'Ordinarily when there is an accusation of defalcation of monies the delinquent employees have to be kept away from the establishment till the charges are finally disposed of. Whether the charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive and are framed only to keep the individual concerned out of the employment is a different matter. But even in such a case, no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and hence it is always advisable to allow disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered. From the charge-sheet it is clear that the allegations against the first respondent are grave inasmuch as they indicate that the amounts mentioned therein are not deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge." 19. In K. Munniappan (supra) referred by learned counsel for the appellants, the Apex Court considered the power of the government to suspend an employee who was involved in embezzlement of public funds and held that even if there is a time gap, a threadbare investigation is required to be undertaken, and it would be difficult to find fault with the authorities for not completing investigation expedit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of suspension was made, it was after considering the fact that order of suspension was made as the delinquent remained behind the bars for more than 48 hours. The order of suspension was not in reference to a vigilance case or for the allegation of the nature involved herein. 23. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the appeal. It is, however, with a direction 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. The order of suspension is not interfered with looking to the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by the delinquent petitioner/non-appellant and he having been caught red- 24. A copy of this order would, accordingly, be produced by the appellants before the court concerned which would be trying the criminal case and even furnished to the police station concerned where the case has been registered to expedite the matter. There will be no order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
