Translate

1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -86

 1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -86

297. Speedy disposal of cases

In Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar, C.A. No.5007 of 2003 d. on 18.7.2003, the Supreme Court observed - "The period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel that the suspension needs to be continued, merely because it is for a long period that does not invalidate the suspension." In an earlier case, the Court has observed that public interest demands expeditious disposal of suspension cases, in the following words :

“An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of proceedings initiated against him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the Government servant concerned.” [P.L. Shah v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 985: (1989)1 SCC 546]

298. The Govt. of India have also issued instructions, re-iterated by them more than once, providing that in all such cases -

(i) the investigation should be completed within three months and the challan filed in a court of law where the prosecution is desired;

(ii) investigation as well as departmental inquiry completed within a period of six months in a case calling for departmental action only.

Where it is not possible, approval of higher authority should be obtained [GI MHA O. Ms. No. 39/39/70-Ests. (A), dated 4-2-1971; No. 39/33/72-Ests. (A), dated 16-12-1972; No. 11012/7/78-Estt. (A), dated 14-9-1978; and No. 42014/7/83Estt.(A), dated 18-2-1984).

299. The courts of law take a very serious view of cases of prolonged suspension. 

It has repeatedly been held that the above said instructions should be followed with due diligence. Suspension should be revoked where all the documents are in possession of the Department and there is no risk of any interference by the employee. In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [(1987)4 SCC 328), the Supreme Court took a serious view of the matter and observed -

“It is a clear principle of natural justice that the delinquent officer when placed under suspension is entitled to represent that the departmental proceedings should be concluded with reasonable diligence and within a reasonable period of time. If such a principle were not to be recognised, it would imply that the executive is being vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress for an indefinite duration.”


Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post