Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Haryana And Others
!"" " "
" "
#$ " " $
" $%
! ""#$""% &
' Certiorari !( ) (
/
0 / / !
.
' 1 ( -
)
2 .
/
( *% *3 "**4
1 (
/
($
( / 5 .
((
((
5
7 1
#
(
(
1 ((
8
1
1 & .
11
.
1 ) .
(
.
( &
( - !(
.
.( .
(
9 ((:
9 :
(
( 1 # 8 1
(
1 1 ( .
(
% &
(
(
1
11
;
< ;
( 1
1
7 1
# 1 1
(1 ( 1 .
( 7 .
1
) .
(
*
1
. 1.
( (
)
.
(
- !(
1 - 1
1
&
.
1
(
!
1 1 ) = 1 ,
!!" #$%& '#( )* +$, "14. The scope of interference by the Court with the order of suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Sardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC 108; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, (1993) 1 SCC 419; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul Razak, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2118; Delhi Cloth General Mills v. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 806; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v. Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp. (3) SCC 483; State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 417; Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, 1996(2) S.C.T.
510 : (1996) 3 SCC 157; and Allahabad Bank & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997(2) S.C.T. 643 : (1997) 4 SCC 1, wherein it has been observed that even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon them by the provisions of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned.
Where the charges are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and in order that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. The court may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete the enquiry within a stipulated period.
Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as which version is true when there are claims and counter claims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review."
1 ( .
( .
1. )
.
1 (
1 7 1 )
- %..&'&( ) %#/, "Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In order words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending enquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the enquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or enquiry etc.
But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation of enquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental enquiry or trial of a criminal charge."
.
.
(
1 (
1
1
.
&
( .
.
( ""#$""% &
(
.
&" $'
sham Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No