2021 (7) TMI 422 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms Tribunal's order on suspension, reinstates respondent. Investigative delays considered. Compliance urged to avoid contempt.

The Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision directing the cessation of the respondent's suspension upon the expiration of the current ... Continuation of suspension of the applicant/respondent - chargesheet/charge memo not filed - penalty on delay in investigation - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that despite the lapse of two years, neither any chargesheet has been filed nor any charge memo has been issued to the applicant/respondent. As far as the issue of suspension of the petitioner and extension thereof, this Court is of the view that the Investigating Authorities have had more than sufficient time to conclude the investigation - For any delay in investigation, the applicant/respondent cannot be penalised. This Court is also in agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the applicant/applicant has now to be paid subsistence allowance equivalent to his salary, it would serve no purpose not to utilise his services. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction and the present writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed. Issues:Challenge to Central Administrative Tribunal's order on suspension extension and reinstatement of respondent.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 11th May 2021, which directed the cessation of the respondent's suspension once the current extension expires and reinstatement thereafter. The petitioner argued that the suspension was based on disciplinary proceedings following the respondent's arrest on 31st May 2019, contrary to the Tribunal's findings. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence informed the petitioner that the final investigation report would be submitted within two months. Despite a two-year delay with no chargesheet or charge memo issued, the Court held that the investigating authorities had ample time to conclude the investigation. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning that the respondent, now entitled to subsistence allowance, should be allowed to work as penalizing him for investigative delays would be unjust.The Court dismissed the writ petition and pending applications, finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The petitioner's counsel, on behalf of the Commissioner of Customs, assured compliance with the order within fifteen days, accepted by the Court to avoid contempt proceedings. The Court directed immediate uploading of the order on the website and forwarding a copy to the counsel via email.