Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court highlighted the judgment of High court in case, Ajay Kumar Choudhary v Union of India, wherein the HC took note of protracted suspension and held that it must be for a shorter period, since it is a threat to fair trial if no useful purpose is being served by continuation of suspension. In a case before the SC, Pramod Kumar, an IPS was accused of extorting money. He was arrested and kept in custody for more than 48 hours, thus suspended from service. The officer challenged the disciplinary proceedings before the administrative tribunal, initiated against him after his arrest. The tribunal refused to interfere in the matter, but it revoked the suspension by stating that there was not enough material to establish his guilt. The High Court upheld the decision of tribunal as regards the revocation of suspension and also quashed the disciplinary proceedings.
Further, it was contended by the state in the Apex Court, that the high court erred in quashing the charge memo as it was not approved by disciplinary authority. Reference was made to the judgment in Union of India v. BV Gopinath, stating that the decision is wrong, since it was observed that the approval of disciplinary authority at initial stage and at the stage of initiation of proceedings is sufficient and the approval of the charge memo is not necessary. The officer contended that the issue relating to the approval of disciplinary authority at the stage of the issuance of charge memo is integral. In the B.V Gopinath case, it was held that if any authority other than the disciplinary authority is allowed to draw the charge memo, the same would destroy the protection guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The Bench observed that, the judgment needs reconsideration and the mandatory requirement under Rule 8 which requires the charge memo to be drawn by the disciplinary authority cannot be ignored, if Mr. Giri is right. It further upheld the order of the high court quashing the charge memo since, requirement under Rule 8 has not been complied with.
While talking about suspension, the court observed that undoubtedly, the State Government has the power to continue the respondent under suspension while under criminal trial but whether the suspension for prolonged period is justified or not. The bench highlighted the fact that no complaint has been made by the CBI, in-spite of granting liberty to the agency to approach the court if the accused tampers with the evidence and it was on the basis of the minutes of the meetings, that suspension had been ordered.
86540
103860
630
114
59824