Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015
14.Although, the submissions made by the Special Government
Pleader has some force that, in matters of corruption, the Courts have to be
16/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.23238 of 2019
little wary in interfering with the suspension, which was necessitated by the
Department as a consequence of corruption on the part of the delinquent
concerned, yet, this Court has time and again interfered with prolonged
suspension even in the matters of corruption as could be seen above. There
are number of cases, which, this Court has passed by directing reinstatement
of the employees, who came under prolonged suspension. However, the
Courts have directed such reinstatement only against non-sensitive post, in
many of the matters, where, suspension order was issued, on the basis of
involvement of delinquent in corruption. In fact, this Court order was
referred to in W.P.No.29209 of 2018 wherein an order dated 25.07.2019,
was passed interfering with the order of suspension by directing the
authority to post the petitioner therein to non-sensitive post. When such
consistent view is taken by the Court even in matters of corruption
prolonged suspension is not permissible following the dictum laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudary case (cited supra)
this Court does not think that the petitioner herein can be treated differently
as the facts would disclose that the petitioner came under order of
suspension as early as on 09.11.2012 and she is continued to be under
17/22
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.23238 of 2019
suspension as on date for more than seven years. The pendency of the
criminal case cannot be the basis for denial of the relief to the petitioner
herein.