O.P.Gupta vs . Uoi on 18 April, 2007
O.P.Gupta vs. UOI
18.4.07
Present : Sh.S.K.Mehta, Adv. for the petitioner
Sh.S.K.Puri, Counsel for UOI.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 376 (1.95 seconds)Documents citing
O.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 September, 1987
A. Biren Singh And Ors. vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 25 August, 2006
29. Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by "suspension syndrome" and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employee's trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension. Suspension notwithstanding, nonpayment of Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of an employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demolished and the salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nick name of 'Subsistence Allowance', so that the employee may sustain himself. This Court in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India made the following observations with regard to Subsistence Allowance (para 15 of AIR):
O.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr. on 14 May, 2020
"D.O. No. PS/ACSHOME/Spl./99
VIJAI VARDHAN, IAS
Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt. Haryana,
Home, Jail, Criminal Investigation and
Administration of Justice Departments
Dated 14th May 2020
Subject: WPC 3068/2020 titled as "O.P. Gupta Vs UOI" in
Delhi High Court.
Shri Prem Singh Bisht vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2015
29. Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by "suspension syndrome" and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employee's trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension. Suspension notwithstanding, non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious effect on the life of an employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demobilised and the salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nick name of 'Subsistence Allowance', so that the employee may sustain himself. This Court in O. P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 328 : (AIR 1987 SC 2257) made the following observations with regard to Subsistence Allowance (para 15 of AIR) :
Udaragondi Rama Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 February, 2021
AIR 1998 SC 1833
6
CDJ 215 SC 129
7
1987) 4 SCC 328
MSM,J
WP.No.16658 of 2020
23
Unlike in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India (referred supra)
where the government servant was kept under suspension for more
than eleven years, in the case, the petitioner was placed under
suspension on 04.08.2014 less than eleven months ago. Long
period of suspension does not make the order of suspension
invalid.
M.R.A. Samuel, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 February, 2021
17. Clause (1) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India has no
application to a situation where a government servant has been
11
merely placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry
since such action does not constitute either dismissal or removal
from service. In certain cases, suspension may cause stigma, even
after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by
the criminal court, but it cannot, in the strict legal sense and by
any stretch of imagination, be treated as a punishment. (Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal6; O.P. Gupta v. Union of India ; and Capt.
M. Hariya Naik, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 March, 2021
Finally, it is contended that, though suspension of this
petitioner for a long period is not permissible in view of the
judgement of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary
v. Union of India (referred supra), but still the judgments of
the Constitutional Bench as discussed by the Division Bench of
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Buddana Venkata Murali
Krishna v. State Of A.P.4, is not a ground to quash the
3
(1979) 2 SCC 286
4 2016 (3) ALT 727
MSM,J
WP_13969_2020
12
proceedings against this petitioner and thereby, the principle
laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India
(referred supra) cannot be applied since the Apex Court did
not consider the Constitutional Bench judgement in Union
of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal5; O.P. Gupta v. Union of
India6, Union of India v. R.P. Kapur7. Thus, in view of the
judgments referred supra, on the ground of delay of six
months in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, learned
counsel for the respondent contended that the suspension
order cannot be set-aside and prayed to dismiss the writ
petition.
C. Santhini vs The Director Of School Education on 29 October, 2012
(f) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in O.P.Gupta V. Union of India and others [(1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases at page 328) and at special page 330, it is held hereunder;
Sunil Kumar Goel vs Ms Maharaja Agarsen Hospital on 28 July, 2025
41. Also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Gupta
Vs. Union of India and others reported as AIR 1987 SC 2257
held that where there is no progress in the departmental
proceedings and the suspension continues for years without
justifiable cause, such suspension becomes arbitrary and illegal
and Prolonged suspension without cause is not only
POIT -952-16 Page No. 22/28
administrative abuse but also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs Union Of India Through on 1 June, 2012
In this regard, it would be appropriate for us to mention the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of O.P. Gupta versus Union of India (supra) where the Honble Apex Court observed that keeping the departmental proceedings alive for 20 years and not to have revoked the order of suspension for over 11 years was grossly unjust. From the date of applicants initial suspension in the year 1999, 12 years have passed. From the date of filing of challan in the criminal cases by the CBI before the trial court in both the criminal cases many years have passed. From the date of filing of Enquiry Report in the departmental proceedings, substantial period has elapsed. Even after the stay was granted by the Honble Supreme Court on 12.10.2007 in both the criminal cases, more than 4= years have passed. Looking into the continuance of suspension of the applicant from all these angles, we get the impression that such a long period of suspension in case of the applicant is not currently justified.