Special Appeal filed against an order dismissing a writ petition challenging an employee's suspension due to a pending corruption case. The Division Bench held no abuse of power existed in the suspension and noted no merit in claims regarding prolonged suspension or lack of review mechanisms.
The intra-court appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
D.B.Civil Contempt Petition Nos.496/12, 460/12, 461/12 & 466/12.
D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.893/2014.
Shri Prahalad Bairwa. VERSUS Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. 09.12.2014.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA
Mr.R.N.Mathur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Mohit Tiwari, Counsel for appellant.
Instant intra-court appeal has been preferred against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.19.05.2014.
The appellant, who is presently working as Assistant Engineer, on account of FIR No.284/2013 dt.27.06.2013 registered against him for offence u/S.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending investigation, was placed under suspension by the competent authority vide order dt.05.05.2014 in exercise of powers conferred u/Reg.9(1)(b) of the Employees (CC & A) Regulations, 1962 and against the order of suspension passed by the competent authority, if any employee is aggrieved, he has remedy of filing appeal u/Reg.10 of the scheme of Regulations, 1962.
The writ petition, came to be preferred by the present appellant, appears to be for two reasons that after the period which is already undergone by him under suspension, it has to be reviewed by the competent authority and at the same time there being a prolonged suspension and no chargesheet has so far been filed against him in the criminal case instituted against him, further continuation of order of suspension is not legally justified and valid under the scheme of Regulations, 1962.
As already noticed by this court, FIR No.284/2013 dt.27.06.2013 has been registered against the petitioner-appellant
-2-
D.B.Civil Contempt Petition Nos.496/12, 460/12, 461/12 & 466/12.
u/S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it is informed to this court that chargesheet has been filed before the competent court having jurisdiction, obviously that can be filed after seeking prior sanction from the competent authority.
The first submission made by counsel for appellant that action not being taken after the FIR being registered against him, no more survives and apart from it u/Reg.9(1)(b) of the Regulations, 1962, the competent authority is within its discretion to place an Officer under suspension if a criminal case is pending investigation and after the FIR being registered, pending investigation, the authority was within its rights to consider it fit to place any employee under suspension. In a given case where the charge against the employee is under Prevention of Corruption Act, we do not find any abuse of power exercised by the competent authority in placing the appellant under suspension under order impugned.
As regards further submission made in respect of prolonged suspension, in our considered view, the submission made at this stage is bereft of merit. In the present case, the appellant is facing criminal case in Prevention of Corruption Act and placed under suspension in May, 2014, which cannot be said to be a prolonged suspension and appears to be a personal perception of the appellant in holding so.
Further submission made by the appellant is that there should be a periodical review. It is always at the discretion of the competent authority to consider periodical review of the suspension but there cannot be any hard and fast rule where suspension is to
-3-
D.B.Civil Contempt Petition Nos.496/12, 460/12, 461/12 & 466/12.
be periodically reviewed by the competent authority.
Counsel further submits that there is no provision of appeal in the Regulations, 1962 since the order impugned has been passed by the competent authority of JVVNL and there is no appellate authority. We have examined on merits and find no reason to interfere. The remedy of appeal may not be of any assistance to him.
We do not find any justification to interfere in the order impugned passed by the ld.Single Judge.
Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
(J.K.RANKA),J.
(AJAY RASTOGI),J.
All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, Sr.P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the continued suspension of an employee facing a pending investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act is legally justified without a prolonged delay.
Whether there is a statutory requirement for the periodical review of suspension orders passed under the Employees (CC & A) Regulations, 1962.
Prahalad Bairwa
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
AJAY RASTOGI
J.K.RANKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
