2019 (7) TMI 1988

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 4485/2018. The Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application preferred by the petitioner wherein he had assailed the continuation of his suspension. He was initially placed under suspension on 16.07.2018 on the ground that he had been detained by the CBI on 01.07.2018. His initial suspension of 90 days was extended vide order dated 28.09.2018 for a period of 180 days. The suspension of the petitioner has been further extended vide order dated 27.03.2019 for a period of 180 days. After taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. U....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), Dr. Rishi Anand (supra) and the further decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Govt.(Home) v. Promod Kumar IPS & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 8427-8428/ 2018, decided on 21.08.2018 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice has defended the continuation of the petitioner's suspension and the order of the Tribunal. He submits that the petitioner was holding a senior position as the Chief Engineer in MES, Ministry of Defence. There are serious allegations of corruption against the petitioner. The CBI has registered a case, which is presently under investigation under Section 120B IPC and under Section 7,8,10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made out against him under the PMLA. In all fairness, he should have disclosed all the relevant facts, since they are most material and pertinent to assess the petitioner's grievance. All that the petitioner states is that someone has played mischief and he claims that the case is false and frivolous. This ipse dixit of the petitioner cannot be accepted. His act of withholding the aforesaid material and relevant information raises an adverse inference that if the same were to be disclosed, it would go against his claim. 11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same....