In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has directed that the suspension of a Government servant shall not be extended beyond a period of three months, if within this period the Memorandum of Charges / charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer / employee. Extending the principle of right to a speedy trial in a criminal case to the issue of suspension in service law jurisprudence, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice C. Nagappan laid down this important principle of law in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, who was posted as Defence Estate Officer under the Central Government [read the judgment, here]. This decision will have far-reaching consequences since it may be applicable to millions of Government employees, many of whom face suspension for prolonged periods which is kept on being extended from time to time. For example, I had handled a case about 12 years back wherein a senior Government officer was under continuous suspension for about 22 years. In another case handled by me, another senior officer was under suspension for about 13 years and he retired under suspension itself. Many of such employees may now get the benefit of this Supreme Court decision. [Update (24 August 2016): Suspension not to exceed 3 months if charge sheet not served, says Central Government.]
It may be pertinent to point out that service rules of various Governments give power to the competent authorities to suspend a Government employee. For example, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, govern employees belonging to the Central Civil Services and Rule 10(1) of these Rules gives the power of suspension in the following matters:
“10. Suspension
(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or
(aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or
(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: …”.
Moreover, Rule 10(2) of the aforesaid CCS (CCA) Rules deals with “deemed suspension” when a Government servant is detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours.
Rule 10(5)(a) of the said Rules further provides for continuation of the suspension until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. However, Rule 10(6) provides that an order of suspension shall be reviewed by the competent authority competent before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. This Rule further lays down that subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. It also lays down that extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.
Thus, in effect, Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules lays down that the suspension order can be issued initially for a period of 90 days, during which period it has to be reviewed by the authority and thereafter it can be extended indefinitely for a period of 180 days at a time subject to further review within such extended period. This means that the suspension can be continued for indefinite periods of time subject to a periodical review.
Similar provisions exist in All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which govern IAS (Indian Administrative Service), IPS (Indian Police Service) and IFS (Indian Forest Service) officers.
In the aforesaid decision delivered on 16 February 2015, the Supreme Court has come down heavily on this type of provisions which allow the competent authorities to extend the period of suspension for indefinite periods after periodical reviews. In the said case, Ajay Kumar Choudhary, the appellant had initially been suspended by the Suspension Order dated 30.9.2011. This suspension was extended on 28.12.2011 for a further period of 180 days. Then, with effect from 26.6.2012 the suspension was extended for another period of 180 days. Thereafter, the third extension of his suspension was ordered on 21.12.2012, but for a period of 90 days. It came to be followed by the fourth suspension for yet another period of 90 days with effect from 22.3.2013. Thus, he continued to be under suspension continuously from 30.09.2011.
The Supreme Court observed as under:
“Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay.”
The Supreme Court further observed as under:
“Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement.”
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions wherein the right to speedy trial in criminal cases was recognized. It observed that “(t)he legal expectation of expedition and diligence being present at every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in departmental inquiries has been emphasised by this Court on numerous occasions.”
Thus, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the right of a speedy trial in criminal cases to the issue of suspension in service law jurisprudence. The Supreme Court specifically referred to the decision of a Constitution Bench in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, wherein it had been held that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and in which detailed directions were issued in this regard. The Supreme Court applied the legal principle evolved in the aforesaid Antulay case in service law jurisprudence and held that the impugned decision of the Delhi High Court in the present case setting aside the decision of CAT which had directed that the appellant’s suspension would not be extended beyond 90 days from 19.3.2013, could not be sustained in view of the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid Antulay case.
The Supreme Court also referred to the provision contained in the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate in criminal cases to authorise detention of an accused person beyond period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. The Supreme Court extrapolated the quintessence of the Proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, to moderate Suspension Orders in cases of departmental / disciplinary inquiries also. The Supreme Court held as under:
“It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued the following important directions in the matter of suspension of an employee:
“We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.”
It is thus really a landmark judgment in as much as the principle of right to speedy trial in a criminal case has now been extended to the service law matters and the suspension of a Government servant cannot be continued beyond 90 days if charge sheet (for a departmental enquiry) is not given on time. Moreover, the Supreme Court has directed that even where the charge-sheet is served on time and the suspension is required to be extended by the competent authority, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.
This judgment of the Supreme Court is expected to benefit a large number of Government employees. In fact, the legal principle laid down in this case may also be applicable to employees of public sector undertakings (PSUs) and Government banks, etc.
Read the full judgment in above case: Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Supreme Court Judgment, 16 February 2015.
Sir
I was suspended on 09.11.21 due to theft had occurred in S/S premises. Competent authority had suspended because of S/S in-charge. Competent authority has served charge sheet on 15.01.2022. As per rule charge sheet should be served within 07 days. Immediately i had submitted reply of charge sheet on 28.01.22 and on 31.01.2022 i was superannuated in suspension position. Now POWERGRID has recommended enquiry committee.
I want to know for how long this process shall be completed.
Can i go in honorable court against management to obtain justice.
Sir,I ajay katiyar was subjected to suspension due to charge sheet filed u/s 306,34 in the court.A charge sheet was issued departmentally D E under procedure. After prosecution sanction, the athority can again suspend,will subject to double jeopardy.Please guide me.Can i contact in person.
hi sir hlo i got suspended for 48 hours coustody and it has been three months since i was suspended
and they extended my suspension for another six months but the charge is not yet filed sir what shoui do now please help me
Kindly assist my queries and concerns at the earliest.
Respected /sir i am senior manager Punjab Gramin Bank sponsored by Punjab National Bank. i was placed under suspension on 28.12.20218 for alleged lapses in some loan accounts, seven tabulars were served upon me from 22.01.19 to 31.07.2020 (more than 18 months). all tabulars were replied by me within the time. last tabular was replied on 30.09.2020. charge sheet is served upon me on 29.01.2021 after 25 months. in the mean time i have written so many requests for reinstatement to DA but no reply from DA. i have also faced two high level police enquiry from which i have been Scott free. i have been completed 30 years of my banking service without any punishment. sir is there any immediate relief for me ( reinstatement).
Sir i am a govt. employee,i hane been suspended from my service and revoke /reinstated my service.now i am getting my regular salary but did not get my time scale and remaining part of my salary which had been deducted because of suspension because my case has not finalised yet.Can i demand my remaining part of salary as well as my time scale,please give me advice what shall i do?
Sir I am working in telangana agriculture department as Agriculture Officer and being placed under suspension from 30.10.2019 until now for a complaint given against me by a political body and I received my charge memo on 24.11.2020 and I had given explanation on 02.12.2020 within 10 days and now on jan 11 2021 without appointing an enquiry officer the dept has extended my suspension upto April 2021. already I am suffering a lot with insufficient 50% allowance I requested several times to the authority to reinstate me on pending disciplinary but to no use I am facing hard times to sustain my family. Kindly suggest me sir should I wait until april again they will extend upto October and in last months they will award a punishment for which also I have to fight in court.
kindly suggest me with your valuable advice sir
Sir I am working in telangana agriculture department as Agriculture Officer and being placed under suspension from 30.10.2019 until now for a complaint given against me by a political body and I received my charge memo on 24.11.2020 and I had given explanation on 02.12.2020 within 10 days and now on jan 11 2021 without appointing an enquiry officer the dept has extended my suspension upto April 2021. already I am suffering a lot with insufficient 50% allowance I requested several times to the authority to reinstate me on pending disciplinary but to no use I am facing hard times to sustain my family. Kindly suggest me sir should I wait until april again they will extend upto October and in last months they will award a punishment for which also I have to fight in court.
kindly suggest me with your valuable advice sir
I am attaching my reply provided to my charge memo kindly advice me sir.
To, Date: 01-12-2020
The Commissioner of Agriculture
Telangana State,
Hyderabad.
Through Proper Channel
Respected Sir,
Sub: Public Services – MAO Vemanpally & incharge of AEO
Cluster of Mulkalpet(v) of Vemanpally Mandal of Mancherial District-
Department Proceedings under rule 20-Submission of written defense
statement against the article of charges framed-Request to stop further
course of action-Regarding.
Ref: – 1.My letter dated 23.11.2020 addressed to C & DA, TS, Hyd
2. Memo No. Vig.II (1)240/2019, dated 12-11-2020.
.
* * * * *
I, respectfully submit to inform that I have acknowledged the receipt of memo under reference 2nd cited on 25-11-2020
In response to the article of charges framed against me I submit the written defense statement as detailed below.
Article of Charge I
I have been working as MAO Vemanpally, since my appointment in the year 2012 and completing 8 years of service in the cadre of AO without any remarks and complaints in the areas where I have been working. It is true that I have been working as MAO Vemanpally and also kept incharge Neelwai cluster of that mandal where the deceased family resides at mulkalpet village which falls under my cluster. During my routine duty, the family members of Smt.Dunna Kavitha w/o late Dunna Venkati came to me with required documents such as aadar card, bank account ,death certificate issued by panchayat secretary and PPB book etc which are required to claim amount from LIC, after receiving the certificates I forwarded the same duly attesting all the certificates and uploaded online to LIC for claiming of amount, it is further submitted that the death certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary was brought by the deceased family only, yes the Death Certificate itself was brought and handed over to me by the deceased family only and my involvement in forging the document is nil. In this regard I submit to inform that the certificates as received have been forwarded with no intention of either fabrication or monitory benefit. Hence I have not involved in the said allegation and also deny the article of charge-I framed against me vide reference 2nd cited.
Hence it is humbly submitted that charges framed against me as above may kindly be dropped.
Article of Charge II
In respect of crop damage the sanctions were made to the ineligible farmers is the allegation against me in this connection it is to admit that with the approval of committee members of Revenue department and Agriculture department i.e; VRO,AEO, MAO,MRO,ADA(R) ,the list of beneficiaries has been submitted to the DAO Office and the office has issued sanctioned orders. In the list submitted to the DAO office it is mentioned against name of the farmer that Owner / Tenant. In view of the above report it was alleged as ineligible farmers. In the guidelines there is a mention of tenant eligibility. Hence there is no possibility to collude with the farmers to do any undue favor, the above facts can be verified with records available in this office. The enumeration process has been carried out as per guide lines communicated.
Hence it is submitted that charges framed against me as above may kindly be dropped as the amounts are directly transferred to the accounts of farmers who were affected with damage of crop and my involvement is almost nil.
In both the cases I followed the procedure and acted as per the prescribed guide lines and no complaints received directly from the beneficiaries except the political motive to defame me before the higher authorities. Further I humbly submit in the light of the above deposition submitted before the kind authority in respect of the article of charges I and II. I submit that I am facing financial problems to cater the needs of my family and loan repayments along with my aged parents who are dependent on me due to insufficient subsistence allowance which are also not paid for the past 2 months. I request the kind authority to drop the charges framed against me and exonerate and further course of action may kindly be dropped.
Yours faithfully
MAO (u/s) Vemanpally(M)
Sir..I am a nationalised bank employee..I am under suspension from May 2020 for certain allegations.Now the final enquiry has been over but suspension not yet revoked.Its already 7 months passed.In the final enquiry only two charges(out of 6) related to non- generation of day book reports proved.During the period of suspected fraud I was in Probation period.No increase in subsistence allowance even after 6 months.I am receiving same 50 percent subsistence allowance.Kindly throw some light on it as to what are my rights now.Normaly how long does it take for reinstatement after final submission.False allegations by Investigation Officer prompted the Disciplinary Authority to suspend me.Pls guide sir.
I was a bank employee,due to impossible unrealistic loan target by next Immediate authorities in writing(despite corporate office lower target)was pressurised to sanction loans.There is no charge of bribery misuse of funds,or fraud against me.There are many technical errors since i was not exposed to to section in my entire 23years of service,left over service is 7 years and it works out nearly1.00cr.I believe technical errors happened without my knowledge because of lack of exposure. There are few police cases also against me.,enquiry over.,company imposed penalty of compulsory retirement which i have not accepted for my financial commitments of my two grown up daughters education and future..please suggest me..
Hello sir,
One of my relative service at nationalized bank which is under central government, and she got trapped on 2010 by ACB.
I have few concerns regarding the process followed. Please refer below queries:-
Q.1. Who has authority to trap a central govt. nationalized bank employee under anti- orruption act when the incident took palce (in yr 2010)? Does this authority comes under CBI or ACB?
Q.2. In case, ACB has trapped central government nationlized bank employee under anti-corruption act, then for such cases does CBI permission is mandatory for the planned trap or not?
Kindly assist my queries and concerns at the earliest.
Thank you.
See the answer at: http://tilakmarg.com/forum/topic/whether-cbi-or-state-acb-can-lay-corruption-trap-against-nationalised-bank-employee/
Some one has caught red handed by the ACB/CBI, thereafter charge sheet has been issued by the CBI and Charge officer was detained for 3 months. Now court has provided bail to the CO, whether it is necessary for department to conduct preliminary enquiry and issue Charge sheet from their side also…or parallel investigation should be avoided and decision can be taken on the findings of CBI and direction of court
I am trapped by acb on 3.12.2015 and subsequently suspended. Now I am receiving half salary only. Shall I am eligible for pay fixation as per prc 2015 of telangana govt and eligible for 75% salary.
The subsistence allowance paid during suspension depends on the rules applicable, which may vary from state to state. For example, for IAS and IPS, it is 50% of salary for first 3 months, and then it may be increased to 75%. You’ll have to check the specific rules that are applicable to you in your state. Also, if by prc 2015, you mean pay commission recommendations, then generally your pay may also be refixed accordingly.
what to do