Back
2000 Supreme(Del) 471
High Court Of Delhi
SURJIT SINGH CHOWDHRY - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 3598 of 1998
Decided On : 05/26/2000
ARVIND BANSAL, B.K.SATIJA, PRADIP GUPTA, R.D.Jolly, R.K.KAPOOR, RATAN LAL CHAWLA, S.K.SRIVASTAV
Headnote:Service Law - Suspension — Undue delay in prolonging the order of suspension — Principles governing the continuation of suspension.
Held:
From the various judgments noted above, one can find different approaches adopted by the Courts depending upon the facts of each case. However, after considering all these cases I have tried to deduce principles governing this subject and I formulate following guidelines relating to the cases of prolonged suspension.
i. 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.
ii. When the delinquent officer is kept under suspension in contemplation or pending departmental enquiry and the enquiry is delayed unduly by the department, the continuation of suspension becomes bad and can be set aside inasmuch as such a delay in enquiry shows that the suspension was not bonafide.
iii Each case will have to be examined and the legality of the suspension would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
iv. The principle mentioned at Seriall No. 1 above, relating to delay in departmental enquiry cannot be ipso facto made applicable in the cases where suspension is resorted to pending investigation/trial of criminal offence.
v. When an officer is suspended pending investigation of a criminal case against him and the investigation is taking long time or after the completion of investigation no proceedings are initiated either in Court or in department and the suspension continues, continuation of such a suspension would be illegal
vi. When criminal trial is pending in Court of law and the same is taking time to conclude, in such cases also, it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the continuation of suspension should be treated as unjustified or not. Various factors which should be taken into consideration, while examining this question, would include the seriousness of charges leveled against the delinquent employee and where the charges are such that it would not be in the interest of department/institution to allow such an employee to remain in the seat i.e. where such charges are related to the performance of duties of the concerned official, or where charges are very serious and have direct bearing on the performance of duties by the concerned official, the suspension cannot be revoked only on the ground that the trial is prolonged. What is to be seen is as to whether the authority bonafide considered that it was not in public interest to revoke the suspension. If such a consideration is given by the competent authority and after due application of mind competent authority has held the view that it is not in public interest to revoke the suspension, Court will not interfere with such order of suspension. On the other hand where allegations in the charge-sheet filed in criminal Court are not very serious and the trial is unduly delayed, the continuation of their suspension may not be justified.
What can be inferred from the approach of the Courts in such cases is that in those cases where Court found that the charges were very serious like committing forgery or defalcation of money, etc. and it was not in public interest to allow such an employee to join back the duties when he was facing such serious charges particularly keeping in view the nature of duties he was performing having direct bearing on the charges he was facing in criminal Court, even long delay did not convince the Court to quash the suspension and allow the delinquent officer to go back on duty unless he is exonerated of the charge. To put it differently, once the Court found that, keeping in view the nature of charges, it was not in public interest to revoke the suspension, prolongation of the criminal case did not become determinative/influencing factor to set aside the suspension order. Of course, interference with such matters depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the division bench of this Court set aside the suspension in the case of K.K. Bhardwaj v. Delhi Vidyut Board (supra) even when the allegations of defalcation were leveled against the delinquent officers. However, as against these allegations, the Court was influenced by three factors namely (a) delinquent officials were under suspension for more than 15 years and 12 years respectively; (b) the attitude of CBI had been absolutely callous and it had not assisted the Court inasmuch as no witnesses in the criminal trial has been examined by that time; (c) the allegations were in respect of incident alleged to have taken place in the year 1982 for which charges were framed by the Special Court in one case in the year 1989 and in another case on 5th January, 1998. It was in these circumstances the Court observed that considering the fact that the appellants have been under suspension for so many years and no progress has been made in the criminal cases, the appellants cannot be asked to await till the disposal of the criminal case.
( 1 ) THE question of law which arises in these two petitions is common. Dispute is not about the validity of the suspension order when passed. However, in both these petitions, petitioners state that suspension is unduly prolonged and therefore continuation of such a suspension order is challenged as unjustified and illegal. Before delving into this aspect it would be necessary to know the facts of each case. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598 of 1998 Security Officer with the MCD on 18th August, 1983. He was confirmed as Security Officer on 1st January, 1987. However, petitioner was arrested on 24th November, 1993 in a corruption case. F. I. R. 53/93 was registered with Anti Corruption Department u/s. 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, petitioner had demanded, accepted and obtained Rs. 5,000. 00 as part payment of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000. 00 from Shri Jeet Lal Sharma, Security Supervisor, MCD, I. S. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi in consideration of his adjustment of D. A. and pension at the time of his retirement and forwarding pension file to Additional Commissioner (Health, MCD) for sanction. Petitioner remained under judicial custody exceeding 48 hours and therefore as per provisions of Regulation 5 (3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Services (Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1959, he was deemed to have been placed under suspension w. e. f. date of his arrest i. e. 24th November, 1983. Order to this effect was issued by the respondents on 2nd December, 1993 placing him under deemed suspension w. e. f. 24th November, 1983. Petitioner was initially paid 50% subsistence allowance. The case of the petitioner s suspension was renewed in accordance with F. R. 53 and the subsistence allowance was enhanced from 50% to 75% vide order dated 7th April, 1994. After the investigation conducted by the Ami Corruption Department, challan was filed in the Court of Shri Dinesh Dayal, Additional Sessions Judge and charges framed against the petitioner. The trial in the said criminal case is still pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Petitioner made requests and representations to the respondents for revocation of his suspension including representation 12th May, 1997. However, since the request of the petitioner was not acceded to, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the continuation of the suspension order. Primarily it is submitted by the petitioner that the criminal trial is taking unduly long time and in the last five years (i. e. till the date of filing of the writ petition) only two witness were examined. It is the submission of the petitioner that criminal trial may not conclude in the near future and may lake unduly long period and petitioner cannot be made to languish under suspension. It is further stated that in various cases of similar nature MCD has revoked the suspension and reinstated employees after receiving no objection certificate from the investigating authority. Similarly, "no objection certificate" in the case of petitioner alongwith three other similarly placed employees, which is a list of 31 such suspended person, is obtained but notwithstanding such "no objection certificate" issued by Anti Corruption Branch on 7th September, 1995 petitioner has not been reinstated after revoking his suspension. One Shri Devender Singh, Jr. Engineer, who was also, suspended w. e. f. 1st November, 1993 having been involved in criminal case by Anti Corruption Department but was allowed to be reinstated vide order dated 9. 5. 1994. It is submitted that no purpose is served in keeping the petitioner under suspension and respondents are adopting discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner who is suffering from acute financial hardship on account of impugned order of suspension. It is also submitted that such order of suspension has the effect of causing social stigma on the petitioner. In support of his submission that the criminal trial is taking so much t
