2017 (8) TMI 1709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7/2016. 2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: 3. The appellant herein filed a petition before the writ Court, challenging the order of his suspension dated 19.08.2016 on the ground that the same had been rendered illegal, inasmuch as, it had had not been followed by a chargesheet within three months from the date of issuance thereof. The basis of this legal plea was the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in case titled "Ajay Kumar Choudhary V/s Union of India & anr." (2015)7 SCC 291, the petitioner claimed reinstatement after the expiry of three months and hence the petition. 4. The plea of the petitioner was resisted by the respondents in their objections, wherein it was stated that the allegations against the petitio....

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's case, inasmuch as, the charge-sheet had been filed much beyond the period of three months prescribed in the judgment (supra) and, therefore, the only course open in those circumstances was to order reinstatement of the appellant instead of granting liberty to the respondents to review the order of suspension in terms of PSB Vigilance Manual. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the provisions of the PSB Vigilance Manual. It would be appropriate to reproduce the same to understand its true nature and purport, which reads as under:- "REVIEW OF SUSPENSION In respect of cases other than those pending in the courts, the total period of su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t was not served upon the delinquent officer/employee and if the charge-sheet was served, a reasoned order would have to be passed for extension of the suspension. 12. These directions were not made subservient to the rules and regulations as applicable to delinquent officers and employees in individual cases. 13. Admittedly, in the present case, the charges were served upon the petitioner on 18.01.2017, that was beyond the period of three months as envisaged in the judgment (supra) and failure to serve the charges within this period would indeed entitle the appellant to reinstatement. The respondents, therefore, by placing reliance upon the PSB Vigilance Manual could not have extended the period of suspension thereafter or invoke its....