9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to suspension order based on violation of constitutional articles and rules of natural justice. Analysis: The petitioner, a Class I Gazetted Officer, challenged his suspension order, claiming that Rule 5 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner was posted at Bhavnagar and faced allegations of demanding a bribe. The suspension order was contested on grounds that the rule did not provide an opportunity for the civil servant to be heard before suspension. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's observations in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India regarding the need for natural justice in administrative actions with civil consequences. In a previous case, the Gujarat High Court considered the authority's power to transfer and suspend a government servant facing disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges. The court emphasized the need for restraint in exercising such powers due to their civil consequences. The authority must assess whether transfer alone would suffice before resorting to suspension and changing headquarters. The court highlighted the financial implications and the importance of recording reasons for such drastic administrative actions. The petitioner argued for the constitutional validity of Rule 5, citing the Supreme Court's stance on natural justice principles in administrative actions with civil consequences. The court acknowledged the importance of fairness in administrative procedures but stressed the need for flexibility based on the circumstances of each case. Immediate action, such as suspension without a prior hearing, was deemed necessary in cases involving serious allegations like demanding bribes to protect public interest and prevent further harm. Referring to a previous case, the court reiterated that strict adherence to the audi alteram partem rule before interim suspension orders may not always be practical and could hinder the administrative process. The court emphasized that while natural justice principles should apply to administrative actions, they should not impede necessary prompt actions, especially in cases involving serious misconduct like bribery. The court upheld the constitutionality of Rule 5, stating that requiring a hearing before suspension in cases of moral turpitude could be against public interest and defeat the purpose of prompt action to protect the integrity of public service. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition challenging the suspension order and dismissed it. The interim relief was vacated, and no costs were awarded.
|
