Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra); the appellant was suspended on 30.09.2011 and continued thereafter with its first extension on 28.08.2011 for a period of 180 days. Thereafter, the extension was repeated thrice.

= 14 = The Tribunal saying that no employee could be indefinitely suspended finally directed that in case no charge memo was issued to the appellant on or before 29.06.2013, he would be entitled to be reinstated in the service. This order was assailed by the Union of India on the ground that the Tribunal had no power to give a direction circumscribing Government's power to continue the suspension. The High Court held that the Tribunal by directing as above, has substituted the judicial determination to that of the authority possessing the power as to the decision was rational to continue with the suspension. So the writ application filed by the Union of India was allowed directing for passing of appropriate order as to whether it wishes to continue, or not, with the suspension having regard to all relevant factors. The aggrieved Officer then carried the matter to the Supreme Court. It would be profitable to place here the relevant paras of the judgment which read as under:-

The reasonings persuading the Court to pass the order as above needs little elaboration. Going to discuss the facts and circumstances of the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury(supra), it has been noted that the Officer therein had not been served with the charge sheet when he initially assailed his suspension or even till the hearing of the appeal before the Supreme Court and later to that the Officer having been served with the charge-sheet, issuance of any such direction had been found to be no more relevant. So, the Court then observed that the Officer if so advised may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law and this action of the Government would be subject to judicial review. It would be proper = 18 = to place the relevant paras of the said judgment in case of Dr. Rishi Anand (supra) which runs as follows:-
iv. that the officer has represented vide letters dated 27.07.2019 and 18.10.2019;

= 25 = v. that CBI has recommended for continuation of suspension of the officer; and vi. that the investigation has conducted by CBI and it has recommended prosecution & RDA against the Officer and that has been referred to CVC for advice.

The above projected reasons / grounds in support of the continued suspension of the opposite parties on a plain reading are not seen to be so relevant or of significance in the totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed. The opposite parties have been shifted from their place of posting, where the allegations were leveled. In the absence of any specific material, the likelihood on their part to influence the investigation and tamper with the evidence in the criminal trial is hardly inferable. There are no such indications that even in their present place of posting, the working atmosphere in case of their joining the work in the office is likely to be polluted when the fact remains that the petitioners are at liberty to post them in any such non-sensitive post as deemed proper. After that incident, no further allegation of their misconduct in any way has also been reported.

With these obtained factual settings, case of the opposite party at B rather stands on a better footing than those two protection officers implicated in the case. In that view of the matter, the continuation of suspension of this opposite party as at (B) is apparently discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because thereby equals have been treated unequally.

For all the aforesaid, regard being had to the principles of law settled in the cited decisions (supra); we find no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal that further continuance of suspension of the opposite parties would no more be useful.