Court quashes suspension order for delayed charges, reinstates appellant under PSB Vigilance Manual

The appellant challenged a suspension order due to a delay in issuing charges, invoking the Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment. The court quashed the suspension after six months, allowing a review as per the PSB Vigilance Manual. The court held that the suspension could not continue beyond three months without serving charges, leading to the appellant's reinstatement. The High Court set aside the conflicting judgment, directing immediate reinstatement and quashing a subsequent suspension order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge against suspension order based on delay in issuing chargesheet.
2. Applicability of PSB Vigilance Manual in suspension cases.
3. Interpretation of Apex Court judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case.
4. Review of suspension order and reinstatement.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the suspension order, citing delay in issuing a chargesheet within three months, following the Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment. The respondents argued serious allegations against the appellant, justifying the delay in issuing the chargesheet. The writ court quashed the suspension order after six months had passed, allowing a review as per the PSB Vigilance Manual.

2. The PSB Vigilance Manual stipulates a maximum suspension period of six months, with provisions for exceptional cases and review after release from police custody. The main issue was whether the respondents could continue suspension beyond three months despite not serving charges, as per the Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment.

3. The Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment mandated that suspension couldn't extend beyond three months without serving charges or a reasoned extension order. This directive was not subject to individual rules and regulations. In this case, charges were served after three months, entitling the appellant to reinstatement per the Apex Court's clear directions.

4. The High Court found the impugned judgment conflicted with the Ajay Kumar Choudhary ruling and set it aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant immediately, with the freedom to transfer him to prevent interference in the ongoing inquiry. A subsequent suspension order was quashed as it contradicted the reinstatement directive.

This detailed analysis covers the legal issues, interpretations of relevant judgments, and the court's decision in this case, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the judgment's implications and outcomes.

---