Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court upheld a Madras Court Judgment saying that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration, revoking the 6 year long suspension against the Inspection General of Police in Tamil Nadu. Pramod Kumar IPS was accused of abusing his official position and extorting money from the directors of a financial institution who had allegedly cheated a large number of depositors, amounting to a sum of 1210 Crores. The IPS officer was accuses of the crime and kept in custody for 48 hours after which he was suspended. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him.
Such disciplinary actions were challenged by the officer in the administrative tribunal. The tribunal preferred not to interfere with the matter but revoked the suspension. The High Court upheld the revocation and quashed the disciplinary proceedings against him.
In the Supreme Court, Advocate V Giri appeared for the state and contended that High Court had erred in quashing the charge memo. It had not been approved by disciplinary authority. On the other hand P. Chidambaram appeared for the officer, the issuance of approval at the initial stage of charge memo is no more res integra.
In Union of India vs. BV Gopinath it was held that any other authority apart from the disciplinary authority can draw the charge memo. This would result in the destruction of protection guaranteed 311 (2) of the Constitution.
The Bench headed by Justice SA Bobde and L Nagaswera Rao, upheld the high court order and quashed the charge memo. They said that in this case the mandatory requirement of the charge memo being drawn up by the authority under rule 8 (4) was not complied with. However the disciplinary authority was empowered to draw a fresh charge memo. The bench noted that there was no tampering of evidence by the officer because no complaint has been made by the CBI in that regard. It was only on the basis of the review committee's minutes of meeting that Principal Secretary, Home Department ordered for the extension of suspension of the police officer.
86540
103860
630
114
59824