Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ix) Mr. Venugopal also draws my attention to the fact that, in a recent decision of the Supreme Court, delivered on 21st August, 2018 in State of Tamil Nadu v. Pramod Kumar, C.A. 8427-8428/2018, Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has been relied upon and reiterated. Reliance is also placed, in this context, by Mr. Venugopal, on a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Sandipta Gangopadhyay v. Allahabad Bank, (2015) SCC Online Cal 3894.

(x) Mr. Venugopal has also referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in GNCTD v. Dr. Rishi Anand, 2017 SCC Online Del 10506, which considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and rejected the submission of the officer, in the said case, founded on the said judgment, that non-issuance of the charge-sheet, within 90 days, resulted in automatic lapsing of his suspension. Mr. Venugopal would seek to draw attention to several observations, of the Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment, which would underscore the fact that this Court had not departed from Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra)-which, needless to say, was not a course of action which was open to it, in law but held that, in view of the peculiar circumstances obtaining, which were different from those obtaining in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the law in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) would not apply. My attention has been invited, in this context, to the fact that this Court, in para 14 of its judgment, opined that the reason, for the Supreme Court setting aside the suspension of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), was that he had, in fact, been served with the charge-sheet albeit nearly three years after his suspension. Mr. Venugopal would submit that his client has not been served with any charge-sheet till date. Mr. Venugopal further relied on para 16 of the judgment which, in his submission, highlights the requirement of six monthly review of every order of suspension, and reads thus :

27.2 At this stage, Rishi Anand approached the Tribunal, contending that, on the basis of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, as no charge-sheet had been issued to him within 90 days of his original suspension, his continued suspension had been rendered illegal. Reliance was placed, by him on the OM dated 23rd August, 2016, issued by the DOPT as a sequel to the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).

27.3 The Tribunal allowed the OA of Rishi Anand, vide its judgment dated 29th May, 2017, relying, for the purpose, on the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). Aggrieved thereby, the Government of NCT of Delhi petitioned this Court.

(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, even though the charge sheet had not been served on the appellant Ajay Kumar Choudhary when he initially assailed his suspension, or even till the hearing of the appeal took place before the Supreme Court on 09.09.2014 (it was only between 09.09.2014 and the date of decision on 16.02.2015 that the charge sheet appears to have been served), the Supreme Court held that since the charge sheet had been served on the appellant, therefore, the directions issued by it would not be relevant to his case. Despite the fact that the appellant Ajay Kumar Choudhary had remained under suspension right from 30.09.2011, the Supreme Court did not set aside the order of suspension since, in the meantime, Ajay Kumar Choudhary had been served with a charge sheet sometime after 09.09.2014, i.e. nearly three years after his suspension.
22. The decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) itself shows that there cannot be a hard and fast rule in this regard. If that were so, the Supreme Court would have quashed the suspension of Ajay Kumar Choudhary. However, in view of the fact that the charge memo had been issued to Ajay Kumar Choudhary - though after nearly three years of his initial suspension, the Supreme Court held that the directions issued by it would not be relevant to his case.