AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
The petitioner is facing an order of suspension which has been passed as back as on 09.03.2018. The precise reason for suspension of the petitioner is the confinement (custody) for a period of 48 hours in pursuance to lodging of Case Crime No.66-18, under Sections 147/148/332/353/504/506 Indian Penal Code and Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act, registered against him.
The argument as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension order has been passed on 09.03.2018, it cannot be permitted to be extended for an indefinite period without the inquiry being brought to its logical conclusion.
He also further submits that the suspension order itself is de hors to the procedure as contemplated under the Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance to the relevant paragraph no.21 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, which is quoted hereunder:-
"We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
In view of the above facts and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has held that the suspension of an employee may not be kept pending beyond a period of three months. Though, there were different set of circumstances which were under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but the fact remains that the ratio contemplates that a suspension has not to be for an indefinite period and in particular looking to the present case, where the petitioner has crossed the age of 59 years and would be attaining the age of superannuation on October, 2018, in an event, if the suspension or the disciplinary proceeding, as a consequence of suspension, is permitted to persist and petitioner attains the age of superannuation, it may prejudice his pension and retiral dues.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this writ petition is being disposed of with the directions that the respondents would under no set of circumstances stretch, the disciplinary proceeding beyond the period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, they will take a decision on the same. Till the decision is taken on the suspension, the suspension would be kept in abeyance.
Subject to the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.