Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1988 - HC - Money LaunderingContinuation of suspension of petitioner - particulars of the case not produced - HELD THAT - The petitioner has held back the particulars of the case registered against him by the CBI, and particulars of the case made out against him under the PMLA. In all fairness, he should have disclosed all the relevant facts, since they are most material and pertinent to assess the petitioner s grievance. No doubt, in the present case, the charge sheet either in the criminal case, or for holding the departmental enquiry against the petitioner has not been issued till date. Investigation is still underway by the CBI - Similarly, the fact that the investigation is underway under the PMLA, could also not have been ignored by the Government. These are serious and valid considerations to justify the continued suspension of the petitioner. In STATE OF TAMIL NADU VERSUS PROMOD KUMAR AND ORS. 2018 (8) TMI 2120 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court, while referring to AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANR. 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Supreme Court had frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration, eventually held that the suspension of the respondent in that case would not serve any useful purpose, on the basis of the material on record of that case. The same cannot be said in the facts of the present case considering the fact that the investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the IPC is underway by the CBI, and by the Appropriate Authority under the PMLA. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed, the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, it is not satisfying that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case. There are no merits in the impugned order - petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the continuation of suspension by the petitioner. 2. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents in determining the validity of suspension. 3. Consideration of serious allegations of corruption against the petitioner. 4. Assessment of the necessity of suspension based on ongoing investigations. 5. Evaluation of the petitioner's withholding of relevant information. 6. Examination of the impact of the petitioner's senior position on the suspension decision. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the continuation of his suspension, which was initially imposed due to being detained by the CBI. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's arguments relying on legal precedents like Ajay Kumar Choudhary and Dr. Rishi Anand. 2. The court analyzed previous judgments, including Dr. Rishi Anand, where the suspension revocation was allowed, and Vijay Kumar Jha, where the suspension was upheld, to determine the relevance of these cases to the current situation. 3. Serious corruption allegations against the petitioner, including demands for illegal bribes, were highlighted by the respondent's counsel to justify the continuation of the suspension. The CBI investigation and the Prevention of Corruption Act charges were crucial factors considered in the decision. 4. The court emphasized the ongoing investigations by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA as valid reasons for the extension of the suspension period. The need to prevent potential witness tampering was also a significant consideration. 5. The petitioner's failure to disclose relevant case details and the nature of the allegations raised concerns. The court noted that withholding crucial information could lead to adverse inferences against the petitioner's claims of innocence. 6. Considering the petitioner's senior position and potential influence on witnesses and evidence, the court found the continuation of suspension justified. The petitioner's release on bail and lack of transparency regarding the bail order further supported the decision to uphold the suspension. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's challenge, citing the seriousness of the allegations, ongoing investigations, and the petitioner's senior position as reasons for not interfering with the suspension order.
|