Back
S. N. PATHAK
Subir Kumar, son of Shri N. K. Roy – Appellant
Versus
National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi through its Registrar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(S.N. Pathak, J.)
The petitioner has challenged the decision contained in Ref. No. 112799 dated 02.09.2024, by which the petitioner has been put under suspension.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed on 25.06.2013 on the post of Assistant Professor on contractual basis. After rendering almost five years of satisfactory service, the petitioner was appointed on regular post following the procedure pursuant to fresh advertisement on 16.01.2018. His service was confirmed in the month of July, 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Associate Professor, following the selection process in the respondent-University. It is further case of the petitioner that on 13.08.2024, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply on the allegation of making plan and to instigate the students to commit incidents within campus on 2nd and 3rd June, 2024. The petitioner replied the same and thereafter, a show cause was also issued to him on 22.08.2024. Though the petitioner replied the same, but he was put under suspension by order dated 02.09.2024, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for t
Suspension orders must not exceed three months without a charge-sheet; otherwise, they are unsustainable in law.
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.
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
Prolonged suspension requires time-bound disciplinary enquiry conclusion; failure mandates reinstatement subject to proceedings.
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 of a government servant must be based on serious allegations and objective consideration, with documented reasoning to prevent arbitrariness.
A suspension order cannot extend beyond three months without a charge sheet and review, as established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extension of suspension orders must be passed within 90 days of the suspension, as directed by Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
When an administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks conscious of Court in a sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards, power of judicial re....
An order of suspension lapses if not reviewed within 90 days, and cannot be extended indefinitely without justification.
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
