Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, M. JOTHIRAMAN
Employees Provident Fund Organization Rep. By its Chairman Central Board of Trustees, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
V. Vasudevan – Respondent
ORDER :
(The Order of the Court made by Justice M. JOTHIRAMAN)
Under assail is Order dated 08.06.2022 passed in OA.No.1083 of 2015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The unsuccessful respondents in OA, have preferred the present writ petition before this Court.
2. The first respondent who was working as an Enforcement Officer in petitioner's organization was arrested on 03.07.2008, in respect of criminal offence, which was under investigation and remanded in judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. By order dated 23.07.2008, the first respondent was placed under suspension. Subsequently, the above said suspension was revoked on 01.04.2009 by the competent authority. Meanwhile, the criminal case was instituted by CBI against the first respondent in C.C.No.1 of 2009 for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the file of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. By judgment dated 28.10.2011, the criminal case in C.C.No.1 of 2009 as ended in acquittal.
2(i). Meanwhile CBI registered another case against the first respondent and his wife in C.C.No.1 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Section 13(
Acquittal in prior criminal proceedings necessitates regularization of suspension period as duty, regardless of subsequent charges.
An acquittal does not automatically dictate salary payment during suspension; the competent authority must evaluate if the suspension was wholly unjustified.
Suspension must comply with procedural rules regarding timelines and grounds; lapses invalidate continuation beyond stipulated periods.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority in justifying a suspension and determining e....
Suspension orders under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so invalidates the suspension.
The main legal point established is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and failure to do so ma....
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
