Jaswinder Singh And Ors vs Punjab State Water Resources ... on 16 March, 2026
In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [Union
of India v.Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 594 (1.59 seconds)Documents citing
Union Of India & Anr vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 22 November, 2013
Date: Shri Moirangthem Sushil Singh vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 18 August, 2022
32. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal, supra, long period of suspension does not make the
order of suspension invalid and even if a criminal trial or enquiry
takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the Court to interfere
in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the
competent authority who can always review its order of
suspension being an inherent power conferred upon them by
the provisions of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
and while exercising such power, the authority can consider the
case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if
satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded
after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned.
Soundari vs The Joint Director Of Agriculture on 6 July, 2021
6. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner
is challenging the impugned order rejecting the request for
revocation of suspension. In the present case, the petitioner was
suspended on 03.08.2018 pending criminal case and not by way of
4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.7737 of 2021
any punishment. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out
of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings
unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in the aid of
proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control
of papers to take any advantage of his/her position. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147 held that the suspension for
longtime is not a ground for revoking the order of suspension
invalid and facts of each case need to be taken into consideration
since no formula of universal application can be laid down.
Sri B K Kishore Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025
54. The petitioner's continued suspension, despite
the quashing of the criminal case and the procedural
infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings, constitutes an
arbitrary and disproportionate action, violative of Articles
14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal ((2013) 16 SCC 147)) has held that
suspension must be based on valid considerations, and
mere reliance on a criminal case, without due application
of mind, cannot justify suspension. The respondents'
continued insistence on the petitioner's suspension,
despite the lack of legal foundation, is thus arbitrary and
legally unsustainable.
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2025
"22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be
summarised to the effect that suspension order can be passed by
the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged
misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the
nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide,
arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due
to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and
determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into
consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid
down in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed
only where there is a strong prima facie case against the
delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily
warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal
from service, or reduction in rank, etc.
Shivanand Naikawadi vs Environment And Forest on 4 December, 2024
18. The executive, how so far junior, cannot be browbeaten by any
Hon'ble Member of legislature to take a decision in a particular way
or to change their quasi-judicial decisions. The very circumstances of
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2024.12.09
15:15:15+05'30'
12
O.A No.170/00143/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
the case makes it amply clear to us that a small incident of telephonic
conversation has been disproportionately magnified into a big issue in
this case. And for merely to inquire whether the applicant himself
recorded and released the conversation to the media, an inquiry is
purported to be instituted. For such an inquiry with suspension, it is
definitely not clear as to in what way, and as to which custody or
control of papers or taking any advantageous position by the
applicant would have been possible when faced with the all-
powerful other side, having the might of the whole Legislature.
Clearly, in this case, there was no fact in terms of that, in any way, if
suspension was not there, the applicant could have had any advantage
or control or custody of any papers which, by his position, he could
have manipulated or influenced. So the element for suspension, in our
considered opinion did not exist in this particular case, and
furthermore hardly any justifiable reasons are visible to initiate any
disciplinary inquiry. From the facts of the case it appears that
unauthorizedly members of public impersonating as a legislator like
respondent no.5 was trying to directly interfere with administration of
quasi-judicial function and enforcement of forest laws or removal of
unauthorized forest land encroachments. Hence, we are clear in our
minds that we do not find any substance in this particular case as ruled
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
CAT
Y VIJU 2024.12.09
15:15:15+05'30'
13
O.A No.170/00143/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147 which goes in favour of the
applicant instead of the respondents who have cited the case.
Sri Kishore Kumar B.K vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2025
54. The petitioner's continued suspension, despite
the quashing of the criminal case and the procedural
infirmities in the disciplinary proceedings, constitutes an
arbitrary and disproportionate action, violative of Articles
14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal ((2013) 16 SCC 147)) has held that
suspension must be based on valid considerations, and
mere reliance on a criminal case, without due application
of mind, cannot justify suspension. The respondents'
continued insistence on the petitioner's suspension,
despite the lack of legal foundation, is thus arbitrary and
legally unsustainable.
Udit Prakash Rai vs Home Affairs on 12 September, 2024
In
support of such contention, attention is drawn to the case of
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
(2013) 16 SCC 147 wherein it was ruled that any order
passed by any authority in spite of knowledge of the order of
the court, is of no consequence and any subsequent action
thereof would also be a nullity. Reiterating the stand taken
in the pleadings, it is averred that the respondents have
committed another illegality by not considering the
applicant's request for change of Headquarter in view of the
pressing circumstances, on account ill-health of applicant's
father contrary to the direction of the Tribunal.
Vikash Kumar Vikash vs Chief Secretary To Government Of ... on 1 July, 2025
In the case of Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 = (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 405 = 2013
SCC OnLine SC 1031 [22.11.2013] the Supreme court referred
the above State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (Supra)
case and said that suspension order should be passed only
mikasha suneja
mikashaCAT Bangalore
2025.07.01
suneja 11:56:17
+05'30'
8
OA.No.170/00261/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent
considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act
of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available.
In para 21 & 22 the court said:-
Deepa Sharma C/O Mr. Dharam Chand Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2026
In the case of Union of India & Another vs. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down
the following principles: