Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court of law has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.

(5) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceedings or otherwise) and any other disciplinary proceedings are commenced or any other criminal complaint is under investigation or trial against him during the continuance of that suspension, and where the suspension of the Government servant is necessary in public interest as required under clause (1), the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings including departmental proceedings taken on the basis of facts which led to the conviction in a Criminal Court.

14. Before addressing the issue about the applicability of the ratio propounded by the Supreme Court, it would be relevant to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra. The judgment aforesaid has been heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. Before referring to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment aforesaid, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be relevant to narrate the facts of the said case. The delinquent officer prepared a note that approximately four acres of land were not defence lands, but were private lands in respect of which NOCs could be issued. Based on the note aforesaid, NOCs were issued by the appellant, followed by his transfer. The NOCs granted by the ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 appellant resulted in the action against him and he was, thus, placed under suspension from 30.9.2011. Challenge to the order of the suspension beyond the period of 180 days was made. The challenge could not sustain and, ultimately, the matter went to Supreme Court. When the matter reached the Apex Court in the year 2015, a period of four years had already elapsed, and in between the charge-sheet in the criminal case was submitted. In view of the above, the Apex Court refused to cause interference in the order of suspension with the observation that whatever finding has been recorded may not be relevant to the appellant therein. However, it was observed that if the appellant is so advised, he may challenge the continued suspension in any manner known to law. The relevant paragraph heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is paragraph (21) of the said judgment. However, it is to be considered in the light of the facts given above. Paragraphs (21) and (22) of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:

22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the respondents will be subject to judicial review."
"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 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2165 of 2015 and 21628 of 2018 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 the suspension placing reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).