STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench has quashed a suspension order no. CE/D/KPDCL/04 of 2022 dated 15.4.2022 by which the applicant Munshi Masood, Junior Engineer was placed under suspension.
While allowing petition, CAT held that the applicant will be entitled to all the consequential dues as per rules. However respondents, are at liberty to issue a charge-sheet and take further disciplinary action as they deem fit.
As per details, petitioner, who is working as Junior Engineer in the department, has been put under suspension. Counsel further stated that the suspension of the applicant has continued beyond three months and despite that, neither suspension has been reviewed nor any charge-sheet has been issued to the applicant till date, which is contrary to the law laid by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary -vs- UOI & Ors and judgments passed by the tribunal in various other cases.
After hearing both the sides, CAT observed that it is a fact that applicant was suspended on April 15, 2022 and till date respondents have neither issued any charge-sheet nor reviewed suspension. Supreme Court has clearly laid down that an order of suspension can’t be continued after expiry of 90 days when a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended employee. The operative portion of aforesaid judgment reads, “We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/ Charge sheet 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 concerned person 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.” Keeping in view the facts and judgment of Apex Court, the suspension order No. CE/D/KPDC/04 of 2022 dated 15.4.2022 by which the applicant was placed under suspension, was quashed, however, the respondents are at liberty to issue a charge-sheet and take further disciplinary action as they deem fit, directed CAT.
