Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Shri R.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the Applicant took us through background of the case and highlighted chronological development upto the date of hearing. Shri R. N. Mathur brought out the following contentions during the hearing: (i)the Applicant has been under suspension for more than 4 years (he was placed under suspension on 12.6.2004); (ii) his suspension has been continuing since then which is in violation of Rule 3(8) (c) and (d)and the procedure stipulated in the Schedule to the Rules; (iii) the Respondent No.2 has been continuing the suspension in routine, and in arbitrary manner; (iv) the Review Committee has been recommending the continuance of suspension in a stereotyped and routine way with non application of mind; (v) the charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case after two years which means the suspension of the Applicant should have been revoked if the charge sheet was not filed within one year of the suspension and filing of FIR; (vi) the Respondent No.2 has been following the policy of pick and choose and the Applicant has been discriminated in continuing the suspension whereas another member of IAS namely Shri Ashutosh Bhargav who was suspended on 30.4.2002, had been reinstated on 22.6.2006 when the criminal case against him was still pending in the court; he cited another case relating to Shri M.N.Dinesh belonging to Indian Police Service involved in a murder case, suspended on 15.5.2007 was reinstated on 29.10.2007; (vii) the suspension was based on the judicial decision taken by the Applicant as part of his judicial duties and he has the protection of Judges Protection Act 1985. In this regard he contended that as per the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in UP Judicial Officers Association Versus Union of India (1994 (4) SCC 687), without the permission of the Chief Justice of High Court of Rajasthan, no criminal case against the Applicant could have been initiated, on the basis of this argument, the Honble High Court has stayed the cognizance of the FIR taken in the Court against the Applicant; (viii) He referred to the circular dated 3.6.2006 (Annexure-A6) issued by Government of Rajasthan. As per the circular, in cases where the stay has been obtained in pending investigation/criminal proceeding by the public servant, such public servant shall be reinstated. He submitted that since Honble High Court had stayed the cognizance of the FIR taken in the court, the Applicants case would get the benefit of the circular for reinstatement.

10. As per Rule 3, a Member of All India Service against whom an investigation or trial relating to criminal charge is pending, may at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension and it may be continued till the termination of all the proceedings relating to the charge. The suspension may also be continued if it is connected with the official position and likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or if the member of the service is involved in moral turpitude. Learned counsel contends that though Rule 3(7) of the Rules, the order of suspension shall continue to remain in force until it is modified and Rule 3 (8) (a) of the Rules makes validity of suspension order for first 90 days and at best for a total period of 180 days with a mandate to review the suspension by the competent authority on recommendation of Review Committee. Detailed procedure for the Review Committee as per Rule 3 (8) (c) has been laid down under schedule attached to the Rules. In view of the Rules position even if there is serious criminal charge against a member of service is pending, it is mandatory for the Respondents to review the suspension for which the functions of the Review Committee has been prescribed in the Schedule to the Rule to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for continuation of suspension. It is the duty of the review committee to look into the factors like (i) the progress of investigation by seeking relevant information from the authorities and on examination of the case,(ii) the consideration of tampering with evidence and (iii) the likelihood of influencing the investigation must be examined and recommendations forwarded with sufficient reasons to the competent authority. The order passed by the Respondents on 20.8.2006 in OA NO. 2075/2006, it is contended by the Applicants counsel, has not considered the above factors and merely on the basis of the nature and gravity of the charge, the suspension was continued. Likewise in OA No.718/2006, while challenging the order passed on 1.3.2006, it is stated that the only consideration is that no new facts have come to the notice of the authorities, and the nature of the charges and gravity persuaded the respondents to continue suspension for 180 days. We find from the minutes of the Review Committee meetings that to some extent routine noting of the nature and gravity of charges have influenced them to recommend continuance of suspension to the competent authority.

12. It is stated that the Review Committee has not applied its mind while undertaking the review of continued suspension and mechanically extended the same without adherence to the guidelines and the rules. We find that the Review Committee has extended the suspension of the Applicant from time to time, and recently on 22.7.2008. Such suspension has been continuing from 1.3.2006 till the latest review. The gravity of offence alleged against the Applicant has been the basis for the continuance of his suspension Ms. Lamba informed. It may be true that reasons may have been recorded in the file but in the matter of suspension, there is no provision for non-recording of reasons under Rules. In the matter of passing an order on the recommendations of the Review Committee it is the duty of both the competent authority and the Review Committee to record reasons for extension of suspension since both act as quasi judicial authority. When the requirement of recording reasons is not dispensed with, the order passed in the review must contain reasons as the Honourable Apex Court in a Constitution Bench in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1990 (4) SCC 594 laid down the proposition that an administrative authority when acts has to pass a reasoned order.

13. On the other hand, we examined the respondents counsels contentions that in case of continued suspension on account of involvement in grave criminal charge of accepting bribe, suspension cannot be revoked and she relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others Versus Udai Narain, {(1998) 5 SCC 535}. The pleadings reveal the nature and magnitude of the alleged offences for which the Applicant has been continuing under suspension for such a long time. The Respondents are duty bound to carry on the investigation at a speed by which the criminal cases would reach logical conclusion. But we find that the progress of investigation into the alleged offences is getting slowed due to speed breakers coming on their way. Through multiplicity of litigation by the Applicant has led to utter confusion, as on every order passed by the Respondents, the Applicant has been challeng in various proceedings.