Back
G.N.RAY, K.M.YUSUF
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, Punjab BANK – Appellant
Versus
DILIP KUMAR DE – Respondent
The judgement provided does not directly address the specific legal principle that a police officer cannot be kept under suspension for more than six months. Instead, it discusses the broader issue of the prolonged suspension of a bank employee, the reasons for such suspension, and the importance of expediting criminal trials and reviewing suspension cases periodically in accordance with government guidelines. The case emphasizes that indefinite suspension without proper review and justification is unreasonable and can amount to punitive action by the passage of time (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
However, it does not explicitly establish or interpret any statutory or constitutional limit, such as a six-month maximum period, for keeping a police officer or any government employee under suspension. The focus is primarily on the procedural and constitutional aspects related to the suspension of bank employees, the delays in criminal trials, and the need for periodic review of suspension orders.
Therefore, the judgement does not answer the specific query regarding the six-month limit for suspension of a police officer.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against order, dated 12th November, 1984 passed in Civil Rule No. 15273 (W) of 1984. The respondent Sri Dilip Kumar De moved a writ application inter alia challenging the continuation of the order of suspension passed against him by the Punjab National Bank and also prayed for consequential relief' on revocation of the order of suspension. On the said writ application, the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 15273 (W) of 1984 was issued by this Court. It may he noted that the respondent writ petitioner Sri De impleaded Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division along with other respondents, via. , respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition. The aforesaid Rule succeeded before this Court by the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge on 12th November, 1984, but in the instant appeal preferred by the Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and three of its officers the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, the Union of India, has not been impleaded. It appears that during the pendency of the writ proceeding, the learned Trial Judge passe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
