Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2018 (8) TMI 2120 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of the charge memo - continuance of Respondent No. 1 under suspension - tampering with the witness - Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 and Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969. Validity of the Charge-Memo - HELD THAT - Rule 8 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 prescribes a procedure for imposing major penalties. A major penalty specified in Rule 6 cannot be imposed except after holding an enquiry in the manner prescribed in Rule 8. Where it is proposed to hold an enquiry against a member of the service Under Rule 8 the disciplinary authority shall draw up or caused to be drawn up the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct Article of charge. The Rule further provides for an opportunity to be given to the delinquent to submit his explanation the appointment of an inquiring authority and the procedure to be followed for imposition of a penalty with which we are not concerned in this case - There is no doubt that the Government of Tamil Nadu is the disciplinary authority. The authority to act on behalf of the State Government as per the Business Rules is the Minister for Home Department. It is clear that the approval of the disciplinary authority was taken for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also clear from the affidavit that no approval was sought from the disciplinary authority at the time when the charge memo was issued to the delinquent officer. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant is that approval of the disciplinary authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings was sufficient and there was no need for another approval for issuance of charge memo. The basis for such submission is that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage - It is also settled law that if the Rule requires something to be done in a particular manner it should be done either in the same manner or not at all. Deemed suspension Under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services Rules for being in custody for a period of more than 48 hours - HELD THAT - Periodic reviews were conducted for his continuance under suspension. The recommendations of the Review Committees did not favour his reinstatement due to which he is still under suspension. Mr. P. Chidambaram learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent fairly submitted that we can proceed on the basis that the criminal trial is pending. There cannot be any dispute regarding the power or jurisdiction of the State Government for continuing the first Respondent under suspension pending criminal trial. There is no doubt that the allegations made against the first Respondent are serious in nature. However the point is whether the continued suspension of the first Respondent for a prolonged period is justified. The first Respondent has been under suspension for more than six years. While releasing the first Respondent on bail liberty was given to the investigating agency to approach the Court in case he indulged in tampering with the evidence. Admittedly no complaint is made by the CBI in that regard. Even now the Appellant has no case that there is any specific instance of any attempt by the first Respondent to tamper with evidence. Thus no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first Respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial - appeal disposed off.
|