1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -95
336. No chance of tampering, no need for suspension
The object of suspension is to safeguard any kind of tampering of evidence by the delinquent. When there is no scope for the delinquent to interfere in the smooth progress of inquiry or the trial, the order of suspension should be revoked. Thus, the touchstone on which an order of suspension will have to be tested is the possibility or otherwise of the accused or the delinquent officer tampering with the evidence.
Shoorvir Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi (1998) 7 ATC 535.]
337. Utmost caution and circumspection must be exercised in passing orders of suspension
An order of suspension is not to be lightly passed against an employee for it cannot be ignored that the suspension brings to bear on an employee consequence far more serious in nature than several of the penalties prescribed under the rules. It has disastrous impact on the fair name and good reputation that may have been earned and built up by him in the course of many years of service. It is, therefore, imperative that utmost caution and circumspection must be exercised in passing orders of suspension
[Nikka Ram Sharma v. Central Social Welfare Board (1990) 4 SLR 407.]
338. A Civil servant cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period on the ground that investigation was not complete.
[Braj Kishore Singh v. Govt. of Bihar, (1990) 12 ATC 50; Chairman () & Managing Director v. Dilip Kumar De (1988) 1 SLR 171; Dist Magistrate & Collector v. Ranendra Nath Das (1992) 65 FLR 807; I.N. Shastry v. State of A.P., 1969 372.]
339. Suspension cannot be for an indefinite period
[Madhsudan Bhuban v. State of Orissa 1975 Lab. IC II ; State of Madras v. K.A. Joseph 1969 SLR 691.)
340. No LTC during suspension
FR 55 prohibits the grant of leave to a GS under suspension. So, it is obvious that the GS cannot avail himself of the LTC facility. His family members can.
Post a Comment