TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EME COURT] sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The present case can be decided on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary [ 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT] . In this case the respondent was arrested on 20.09.2013 based on an FIR No. 16/2013. He was thereafter placed under deemed suspension. The respondent was released on bail on 01.11.2013. Till date neither any departmental proceedings have been initiated against him by the petitioners nor a charge-sheet has been filed in the criminal court. There are no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal which would require us to interfere in the proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t him at the Police Station Anti Corruption Branch for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 12 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 417 418 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the allegations of giving bribe to a person, who had made some complaint against him. The respondent was released on bail by the order of the Special Judge dated 1st November, 2013. He reported for duty on 4th November, 2013, but he was not permitted to join. By an order dated 20th November, 2013, he was placed under deemed suspension from the date of his arrest i.e. 20th September, 2013 and the period of suspension of the respondent has been extended from time to time as required under Rule 10(6) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. We have posted two basic questions to learned counsel for the petitioner, the first one being, as to whether any departmental inquiry has been initiated against the respondent and the second one being as to whether, any charge sheet has been filed in the criminal court from the date of registration of the FIR against the respondent, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner answered in the negative. 6. While, there can be no quarrel to the proposition that merely because a period of suspension is long, that by itself cannot be a ground to withdraw the order of suspension. We are of the view that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank (supra) and in Rajiv Kumar (supra) sought to be relied upon by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. 14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
