Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant's continued suspension, extended from time to time without a charge-sheet having been issued within 90 days, was illegal and liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the governing suspension rules do not create automatic reinstatement merely because a charge-sheet is delayed. An order of suspension continues to remain in force until modified or revoked by the competent authority, and the legality of its extension depends on judicial review of the reasons and the surrounding facts. The Tribunal relied on the seriousness of the allegations, the pending and completed investigations by the CBI and vigilance authorities, and the fact that major penalty proceedings and prosecution were contemplated. It also treated the cited authorities as not laying down an absolute rule that suspension must end after three months in every case where a charge-sheet has not been served.
Conclusion: The continued suspension was not held illegal, and no interference was called for.
Ratio Decidendi: Suspension under the relevant service rules does not lapse automatically on expiry of 90 days merely because no charge-sheet has been issued, and its continuation may be sustained where the allegations are serious and the competent authority has not revoked it.