Writ petition challenging continuance of suspension order in departmental proceedings dismissed as review report not legally infirm. Court directed completion of proceedings within six months.
Writ petition dismissed with direction to complete disciplinary proceedings within six months.
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.
W.P.(C) No.17 of 2017
| Noting by Officer or Advocate |
Serial No |
Date |
Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04 | .09.2017 | BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the continuance of the suspension order under No. F. CMD/19.69/2012/1431 dated 28.11.2012, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the continuance of the suspension order is wholly unjust, unfair and it warrants interference from this court. It is the second round of litigation in respect of the suspension order. Earlier the petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.402 of 2014 had questioned the continuance and this court disposed of the said writ petition by the judgment and order dated 24.08.2015 on directing the respondents to review whether there is necessity of continuation of the suspension order of the petitioner on every 3(three) months and if it appears that the continuation of the suspension order is no more required, the said suspension order be immediately revoked subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has today filed the report of the review committee including the order under No. F.CMD/19.69/2012/21049-57 dated 29.07.2017, whereby the review committee has given the reasons for continuance of the suspension order. The reasons are not on the face unjust or contrary to the provisions of law. In view of this, this court is not inclined to interfere with the suspension order as challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner. |
Sujay
Page 1 of 2
W.P.(C) No.17 of 2017
| Noting by Officer or Advocate |
Serial No |
Date |
Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature |
|---|---|---|---|
| However, in the circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceeding within 6(six) months from today. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate in the proceeding so that the proceeding can be taken to its logical end by the time as stipulated. It is made clear that the extension of time shall not permitted by this court under any circumstances. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed, subject to the direction in respect of the departmental proceeding. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE |
Sujay
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suspension order in disciplinary proceeding requires judicial interference.
Whether time limit should be imposed for completion of disciplinary proceedings.
Sujay
Respondents
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
