TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT ] , it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein the Appellant had been served with a charge sheet before the judgment was pronounced. On that basis, on the facts of that case, paragraph 22 reflects that the order of suspension was not set aside although the suspension period exceeded three months. However, while disposing of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the suspension period should not extend beyond three months if the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. Upon considering the law laid down in the judgments that have been discussed herein above, it is clear that there is no absolute rule in respect of the validity of suspension orders from the perspective of duration especially when such suspension is in the context of a pending criminal proceeding. In other words, in these situations, the law on suspension as laid down in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, [ 1963 (11) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT ] , by a Five Judge Bench upholding suspension pending enquiry subject to payment of subsistence allowance as per service conditions and that in UNION OF IND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be faulted. In particular, he contends that the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [2015 (7) SCC 291] (Ajay Kumar Choudhary) is not applicable in a situation wherein criminal proceedings in respect of corruption are pending before a competent court. In fact, he points out that the learned single Judge directed that such proceedings be concluded within four months but notwithstanding such direction erred by revoking the suspension and directing that the Respondent be posted in a non-sensitive post. For all these reasons, he contended that the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Sankaran submitted that the Respondent was wrongly framed in the trap case and that the allegation is that he demanded a sum of Rs. 2,100/- for getting permission to fix the change over switch. On that basis, he was suspended on 09.01.2017. In spite of the lapse of more than three years, the suspension order has not been revoked. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel referred to and relied upon the following judgments: (i) S. Ravi and Others v. District Collector and Others [2015-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the 90 day period. The learned counsel contended that these cases are distinguishable inasmuch as the suspension order has continued to be in force for more than three years although the alleged offence is not serious and was foisted on the Respondent. 6. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and examined the records. 7. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the order of suspension is liable to be revoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. The undisputed position, in this case, is that criminal proceedings were initiated against the Respondent on the basis of the trap laid by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. Such proceedings are admittedly pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai in S.C. No. 53 of 2018. Therefore, this is clearly a case wherein a charge sheet was filed and the criminal process is underway. The law relating to suspension orders and their revocation should be examined against this background. 8. On perusal of the Full Bench judgment in S. Ravi, it is clear that the Court did not direct the revocation of suspension if the suspension period exceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mandatory requirement by prescribing a period of review, otherwise, there will be a serious prejudice and continued apathy over the issue of keeping the Government servant for an unending period under suspension. 9. The sheet anchor of the Respondent's case is the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Therefore, it is necessary to extract paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof which are as under: 21. 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 Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safegu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nown to law, if so advised, and it was clarified that the action of the respondents in continuing suspension would be subject to judicial review. In our view, the learned Single Bench erred in setting aside the suspension placing reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). 10. It is well settled that a judgment is to be understood in the context of the facts in which the judgment is rendered. Sentences in a judgment cannot be read in the same manner as a statute and in any case, words and sentences in a judgment cannot be read out of context. In Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, cited by Mr. S. Saji Bino, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, a Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held as under: '9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
