9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ai. On account of the continuation of the suspension, he filed W.P. No. 3398 of 2020 to challenge the proceedings by which he was placed under suspension. By order dated 27.02.2020, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by revoking the suspension and directing that the Respondent/Petitioner be placed in a non-sensitive post. The learned single Judge further directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Court, Thiruvannamalai, to complete the proceedings in Spl. C.C. No. 53 of 2018 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said order is impugned herein. 2. We heard the learned standing counsel, Mr. Karthik Rajan, for the Appellants and the learned counsel, Mr. G. Sankaran, for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel, Mr. Karthik Rajan, pointed out that the Respondent is being prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai, in a serious corruption case and, therefore, the continuation of the suspension by the Appellants cannot be faulted. In particular, he contends that the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [2015 (7) SCC 291] (Ajay Kumar Choudh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endran in W.A. No. 613 of 2017, judgment dated 15.06.2017, wherein the Division Bench of this Court relied upon Ajay Kumar Choudhary and upheld the revocation of the order of suspension. 5. By relying on the aforesaid judgments, Mr. Sankaran endeavoured to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Director General of Police v. T. Kamarajan, W.A. No. 3957 of 2019, judgment dated 19.11.2019 (Director General of Police), wherein this Court distinguished Ajay Kumar Choudhary and concluded that the said judgment does not lay down an absolute proposition that an order of suspension should never extend beyond three months. He also pointed out that the facts of the case should be distinguished from that in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Dr. Rishi Anand. In this judgment also, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary and concluded that the suspension order does not lapse ipso facto upon the expiry of the 90 day period. The learned counsel contended that these cases are distinguishable inasmuch as the suspension order has continued to be in force for more than three years although the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , such as, investigation and the other mechanism involved in the process of conclusion of the enquiry for certain reasons not to conclude the enquiry, may not be right on the executive authority and, therefore, we feel, the said issue needs to be considered either by amending the rules or by bringing a proper legislation in regulating the order of suspension. 49. The Constitution of India guarantees the right of public employment and the equality thereof guaranteed to everyone under Article 16 (1) shall be made available to every citizen, including the delinquent employee. Such a right has to be enjoyed by the Government servant during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. Therefore, the executive order, taking away the rights conferred upon the citizens, without making necessary amendment to the rules or bringing proper 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 unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he suspension period exceeded three months. However, while disposing of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the suspension period should not extend beyond three months if the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. The judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary was dealt with in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Director General of Police [cited supra]. In the said judgment, this Court held as follows in paragraphs 9-11: 9. We are of the view that Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not lay down any absolute proposition that an order of suspension should never extend beyond three months. In fact, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the directions regarding the restriction on extension of a suspension order beyond 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in paragraph 11 of R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787, by a Five Judge Bench upholding suspension pending enquiry subject to payment of subsistence allowance as per service conditions and that in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147, wherein it was held that the court does not sit in appeal and that such orders would be interfered with only if the charges are patently baseless, mala fide or vindictive would continue to hold the field. In this case, as stated earlier, there is a pending criminal proceeding, wherein the Respondent is being prosecuted for corruption. In these circumstances, the decision of the learned single Judge to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conclude the proceeding within four months is justified 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
