Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)The General Clauses Act, 1897
Union Of India & Anr vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 22 November, 2013
13. Furthermore, with regards to scope of Judicial interference with
orders of suspension, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2014 (2) SCT 70, speaking
through Justice B.S. Chauhan, has held as follows:
P.V. Srinivasa Sastry And Others vs Comptroller And Auditor General And ... on 11 December, 1992
"14. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of
suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of
cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Sardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC
108; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of
India, (1993) 1 SCC 419; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul
Razak, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s.
Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2118;
Delhi Cloth General Mills v. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 Supreme
Court 806; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v.
Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp.
Director General, Esi & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak Etc on 8 July, 1996
"14. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of
suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of
cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Sardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC
108; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of
India, (1993) 1 SCC 419; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul
Razak, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s.
Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2118;
Delhi Cloth General Mills v. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 Supreme
Court 806; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v.
Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp.
The Delhi Cloth And General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan on 10 March, 1959
"14. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of
suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of
cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Sardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC
108; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of
India, (1993) 1 SCC 419; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul
Razak, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s.
Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2118;
Delhi Cloth General Mills v. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 Supreme
Court 806; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v.
Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp.
U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi ... vs Sanjiv Rajan on 29 March, 1993
"14. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of
suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of
cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Sardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC
108; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of
India, (1993) 1 SCC 419; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul
Razak, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s.
Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2118;
Delhi Cloth General Mills v. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 Supreme
Court 806; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v.
Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp.
State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena & Others on 27 September, 1996
(3) SCC 483; State of Rajasthan v.
B.K. Meena & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 417; Secretary to Govt.,
Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, 1996(2)
S.C.T. 510 : (1996) 3 SCC 157; and Allahabad Bank & Anr. v.
Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997(2) S.C.T. 643 : (1997) 4 SCC 1,
wherein it has been observed that 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 a 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. Where the charges
are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep
the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is
made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived at
without examining the entire record in question and in order
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 02:34:57 :::
CWP-37150-2018
CWP-13692-2021 -9-
that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the
court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion
that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to
have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the
delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. The court
may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for
delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete the enquiry
within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of
enquiry or trial can not be a ground for quashing the suspension
order, if the charges are grave in nature. But, whether the
employee should or should not continue in his office during the
period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary
authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not
interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed in
mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence
on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in
question.
Secretary To Government,Prohibition & ... vs L. Srinivasan on 15 February, 1996
(3) SCC 483; State of Rajasthan v.
B.K. Meena & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 417; Secretary to Govt.,
Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, 1996(2)
S.C.T. 510 : (1996) 3 SCC 157; and Allahabad Bank & Anr. v.
Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997(2) S.C.T. 643 : (1997) 4 SCC 1,
wherein it has been observed that 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 a 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. Where the charges
are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep
the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is
made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived at
without examining the entire record in question and in order
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 02:34:57 :::
CWP-37150-2018
CWP-13692-2021 -9-
that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the
court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion
that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to
have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the
delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. The court
may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for
delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete the enquiry
within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of
enquiry or trial can not be a ground for quashing the suspension
order, if the charges are grave in nature. But, whether the
employee should or should not continue in his office during the
period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary
authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not
interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed in
mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence
on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in
question.
Allahabad Bank And Anr vs Deepak Kumar Bhola on 13 March, 1997
(3) SCC 483; State of Rajasthan v.
B.K. Meena & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 417; Secretary to Govt.,
Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, 1996(2)
S.C.T. 510 : (1996) 3 SCC 157; and Allahabad Bank & Anr. v.
Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997(2) S.C.T. 643 : (1997) 4 SCC 1,
wherein it has been observed that 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 a 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. Where the charges
are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep
the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is
made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived at
without examining the entire record in question and in order
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2025 02:34:57 :::
CWP-37150-2018
CWP-13692-2021 -9-
that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the
court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion
that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to
have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the
delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. The court
may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for
delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete the enquiry
within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of
enquiry or trial can not be a ground for quashing the suspension
order, if the charges are grave in nature. But, whether the
employee should or should not continue in his office during the
period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary
authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not
interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed in
mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence
on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in
question.
1