Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Joram Nagu – Appellant
Versus
State of AP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC representing the respondent No. 5 and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 29.10.2022 (Annexure-1) issued by the Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short APPSC), whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension purportedly in exercise of power under Article 371H of the Constitution of India. The further challenges are two orders dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-4) and 24.07.2023 (Annexure-5), by way of which the suspension of the petitioner was extended for a period of three months on each occasion in purported exercise of power under Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short (CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965). A further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus is made to direct the respondent State to reinstate the petitioner in service.
3. The basic ground of such challenge is that no memorandum of charges has been framed t
The court established that prolonged suspension without initiation of departmental proceeding and without recording reasons for extension is impermissible. The court also clarified that the extension....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that prolonged suspension without initiating any departmental proceeding, extensions of suspension without recorded reasons, and exceeding the maxi....
Prolonged suspension without initiation of departmental proceeding and extensions without valid reasons are not permissible. The total period of suspension is limited under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extension of suspension must be supported by reasons as mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the lack of reasons for the extension of s....
The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of periodic review before extending the suspension period and the timely service of charge memo as per the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965.
Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
Suspension orders under CCS (CCA) Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; indefinite suspension without charges violates personal freedom and the right to a speedy trial.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days as per CCS (CCA) Rules; failure to do so renders the suspension invalid.
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
