Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Snehangshu Roy S/o Late S. B. Roy – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh representing all the respondents.
2. The brief case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was posted as In-Charge Extra-Assistant Commissioner at Diyun Circle under Bordumsa Sub-Division in the Changlang District of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner was placed on suspension in exercise of power conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, (in short CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) vide Memorandum dated 22.11.2022 on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings is being contemplated against the petitioner. Thereafter a Memorandum of Charge dated 13.01.2023 was served upon the petitioner with the imputation of charge that while the petitioner was functioning as i/c Extra Assistant Commissioner, Diyun, Channgland District had engaged one Shri Robin Chakma as MTS in the office of the EAC, Diyun since June, 2021 without any authority and permission from the government. Consequent to the issuance of Memorandum dated 13.01.2023, the peti
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....
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 prolonged suspension without initiating any departmental proceeding, extensions of suspension without recorded reasons, and exceeding the maxi....
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 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.
Suspension orders must comply with procedural requirements, including a reasoned extension within three months, as established by the Supreme Court, failing which the order is unsustainable.
Suspension orders must comply with Supreme Court guidelines, requiring a reasoned extension beyond three months; failure to do so renders the suspension unsustainable.
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 must comply with Supreme Court directives, requiring a reasoned extension if a charge sheet is served; otherwise, they are unsustainable.
The currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months without serving the charge-sheet and providing reasoned orders for extension, as established by legal precedents.
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
