17.2.2015
NEW
DELHI: Supreme Court has prescribed that a government employee cannot be
kept under suspension for over 90 days in the absence of a charge sheet
against him as such persons "suffer the ignominy of insinuations, the
scorn of society and the derision of their Department".
Observing
that "protracted period of suspension of delinquent government employee
has become a norm", a bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and C Nagappan
said suspension, specially preceding formulation of charges, was
essentially transitory or temporary in nature and must 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," it said.
Dwelling
on the issue, the bench observed that "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 misdemeanor, 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.
Indubitably the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does
not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the
incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused,"
the bench said.
Accordingly,
it directed that "the currency of a suspension order should not extend
beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/
Charge sheet is not served on delinquent officer/employee; if Memorandum
of Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for
the extension of the suspension."
The
apex court's judgement came on a petition by defence estate officer Ajay
Kumar Choudhary, who was suspended in 2011 for allegedly issuing wrong
no-objection certificates for the use of approximately four acres of
land in Kashmir.
Based on the findings given in the verdict, it said the officer can challenge his continued suspension.
"So far
as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Appellant has now
been served with a Charge sheet and therefore, these directions may not
be relevant to him any longer. "However, if the Appellant is so advised
he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law,
and this action of the Respondents will be subject to judicial review,"
the bench said.