Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Primarily it is submitted by the petitioner that the criminal trial is taking unduly long time and in the last five years (i.e. till the date of filing of the writ petition) only two witness were examined. It is the submission of the petitioner that criminal trial may not conclude in the near future and may take unduly long period and petitioner cannot be made to languish under suspension. It is further stated that in various cases of similar nature MCD has revoked the suspension and reinstated employees after receiving no objection certificate from the investigating authority. Similarly, "no objection certificate" in the case of petitioner alongwith three other similarly placed employees, which is a list of 31 such suspended person, is obtained but notwithstanding such "no objection certificiate" issued by Anti Corruption Branch on 7th September, 1995 petitioner has not been reinstated after revoking his suspension. One Shri Devender Singh, Jr. Engineer, who was also suspended w.e..f. 1st November, 1993 having been involved in criminal case by Anti Corruption Department but was allowed to be reinstated vide order dated 9.5.1994. It is submitted that no purpose is served in keeping the petitioner under suspension and respondents are adopting discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner who is suffering from acute financial hardship on account of impugned order of suspension. It is also submitted that such order of suspension has the effect of causing social stigma on the petitioner. In support of his submission that the criminal trial is taking so much time, petitioner's continuous suspension is not justified reliance was placed upon the following judgments:-

11. The suspension can be resorted to, under the relevant rules in these cases, in contemplation and/or during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings as well as during the pendency of criminal trial against the employees. In these cases where the employee is suspended in contemplation and/or pending disciplinary proceedings and such a suspension is prolonged, it may not cause much of a problem. If the enquiry is unduly prolonged due to the reasons attributable to the employer e.g. delay in serving charge-sheet or delay in conducting enquiry, the suspension order can be interfered with and the department can be directed to revoke the suspension and take back the suspended employee on duties. Reasons are obvious. Since the suspension causes hardship and affects the government servant injuriously, after suspending him it is expected that departmental proceedings are concluded expeditiously which is in public interest as well as in interest of government servant concerned. In public interest because the concerned suspended employee is being paid the subsistence allowance without taking work from him and in the interest of government servant concerned because the continued suspension is causing hardship to him. For these reasons, it is necessary to know the outcome of the charges levelled against such an employee which compelled the employer to put him under suspension in view of the pendency of departmental proceedings. Since the departmental enquiry is initiated by the department, and it is within the control of the department and when delay takes place in concluding the enquiry the blame can be put on the department for such delay and therefore it can be inferred that the continuation of suspension is not justified. There are many instances where suspension order/continuation of suspension order are quashed when the departmental enquiry is unnecessarily prolonged (refer T.S. Guru Siddiah Vs. State reported in AIR 1963 Mysore 109).

v. When an officer is suspended pending investigation of a criminal case against him and the investigation is taking long time or after the completion of investigation no proceedings are initiated either in Court or in department and the suspension continues, continuation of such a suspension would be illegal.

vi. When criminal trial is pending in Court of law and the same is taking time to conclude, in such cases also, it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the continuation of suspension should be treated as unjustified or not. Various factors which should be taken into consideration, while examining this question, would include the seriousness of charges levelled against the delinquent employee and where the charges are such that it would not be in the interest of department/institution to allow such an employee to remain in the seat i.e. where such charges are related to the performance of duties of the concerned official, or where charges are very serious and have direct bearing on the performance of duties by the concerned official, the suspension cannot be revoked only on the ground that the trial is prolonged. What is to be seen is as to whether the authority bonafide considered that it was not in public interest to revoke the suspension. If such a consideration is given by the competent authority and after due application of mind competent authority has held the view that it is not in public interest to revoke the suspension, Court will not interfere with such order of suspension. On the other hand where allegations in the charge-sheet filed in criminal Court are not very serious and the trial is unduly delayed, the continuation of their suspension may not be justified.

24. Therefore, no hard and fast rule can be made and even where the suspension is pending criminal trial, the Court can interefere with the order of suspension. But this course would to be resorted to only where the Court is convinced that such continuation of suspension is doing injury to the concerned officer and it is not in public interest either to keep the delinquent official under suspension.

After laying down these broad guidelines let me now examine the validity of the continuation of suspension in these writ petitions.