Disciplinary charge memo approval must meet statutory requirements; prolonged suspension cannot rest on mere apprehension alone.

Rule 8(4) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 requires the disciplinary authority itself to draw up, or cause to be drawn up, the charge memo; prior approval only for initiation of proceedings was held insufficient, so the charge memo was invalid and the High Court's quashing of the disciplinary proceedings was upheld. The officer's prolonged suspension was also unjustified because it continued for more than six years without material showing tampering with evidence or interference with the trial; mere apprehension was not enough, so the direction to reinstate the officer was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge memo issued to the officer was invalid for want of approval by the disciplinary authority; (ii) Whether the officer's prolonged suspension could be continued in the absence of material showing tampering with evidence or interference with the trial.

Issue (i): Whether the charge memo issued to the officer was invalid for want of approval by the disciplinary authority.

Analysis: Rule 8(4) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 requires the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up the charge memo. The approval already obtained for initiation of departmental proceedings did not satisfy this mandatory requirement. The reasoning adopted in the earlier decision on approval of charge memoranda was applied, and the Court held that the business rules and standing orders did not dilute the statutory command.

Conclusion: The charge memo was invalid and the High Court was in quashing the disciplinary proceedings on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the officer's prolonged suspension could be continued in the absence of material showing tampering with evidence or interference with the trial.

Analysis: The officer had remained under suspension for more than six years. No complaint was shown from the investigating agency about tampering with evidence, and the material relied upon consisted only of apprehensions that he might influence witnesses or misuse office. Protracted suspension was held to be unjustified where no useful purpose would be served by its continuation and the fair-trial concern was not demonstrably endangered.

Conclusion: The continuation of suspension was unjustified and the direction to reinstate the officer was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's judgment failed on both counts, and the officer obtained relief against both the disciplinary proceedings and the prolonged suspension.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing service rule requires the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up the charge memo, prior approval only for initiation is insufficient, and suspension cannot be prolonged indefinitely on mere apprehension without concrete material of interference with the inquiry or trial.

---