Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Kuldev Prasad Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2023 cites

Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union Of India Thr Its Secretary & Anr on 16 February, 2015

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) (Science) was put under suspension on the ground that petitioner was implicated in one criminal case. From the date of suspension, as -2- of now, about 11 months have already been elapsed, but till date order of suspension is not reviewed or revoked by respondent No.2. He submits that according to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary & Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 291 after completion of 90 days from the date of issuance of suspension order, competent authority is required to review the order of suspension and a Govt. employee cannot be kept under suspension beyond period of 90 days, without passing any further order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 2060 - V Sen - Full Document

Raghubir Singh & Others Etc vs State Of Bihar on 19 September, 1986

"20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an -3- accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1986 (4) SCC 481, and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 to moderate Suspension Orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary inquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of Charges/ Chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the 4 proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same -4- pedestal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 437 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1