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 - DELHI HIGH COURTContinuation 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.
|