LexAJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 415 AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015) FEBRUARY 16, 2015. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Service Law - Suspension - Protraction of - Propriety - Held: Right to speedy trial is implicit in Art. 21 of the Constitution and also reflected in s.309 Cr.PC. A B c - Proviso to s. 167(2) Cr.P. C. has the effect of circumscribing the detention of an accused within a D period of 90 days - The quintessence of the proviso to s.167(2) can be extrapolated to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental disciplinary inquiries - Thus, it is directed that currency of suspension should not extend beyond three months, if within this period E charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent - If the charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extention of suspension - The Government is free to transfer the delinquent to any other F department and impose such conditions that the delinquent is not able to affect the investigation - This will adequately safeguard the principle of human dignity and right to speedy trial and will also preserve the interest of Government in the prosecution - In the G present case, since the delinquent/appellant has been served with the charge-sheet, the above directions are not applicable to him - However, the delinquent is given 415 H 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A liberty to challenge his continued suspension in appropriate forum - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.309 and Proviso to s. 167(2) - Magna Carta of 1215 - 8 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - Art. 12 - European Convention on Human Rights - Art. 6(1). c Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the present case, reasons were elaborately recorded for each extension of suspension and within the currency of the then prevailing period. The salutary requirement of D natural justice, that is of spelling out the reasons for the passing of an order, has been complied with in the present case. [Para 6] [423-H; 424-A,B] Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad E 2012 (3) scR 775 = 2012 (4) sec 407 - held inapplicable. State of A. P. v. N. Radhakishan 1998 (2) SCR 693 = 1998 (4) SCC 154, Union of India v. Dipak Mali F 2009 (16) SCR 564 = 2010 (2) sec 222 - distinguished. 2.1 Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or G 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 H would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/ AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA THR. 417 ITS SECY. disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with A delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay. [Para 8] [425-A-C] B 2.2 Right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and is also reflected in Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. 1973; that it encompasses all stages, viz., investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, C revision and re-trial; that the burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the delay; that the Court must engage in a balancing test to determine whether this right had been denied in the particular case before it. Keeping these factors D in mind the Central Administrative Tribunal had directed that the appellant's suspension would not be extended beyond 90 days from 19.3.2013. The High Court set aside this direction, viewing it as a E substitution of a judicial determination to the authority possessing that power, i.e., the Government. This conclusion of the High Court cannot be sustained. [Para 11] [427-H; 428-A-C] F Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 (2) SCR 375 = (1994) 3 SCC 569; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Na yak 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 325 = 1992 (1) SCC 225- followed. G State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995 (1) SCR 695 = (1995) 2 sec 570 - relied on. Klapfer vs. State of North Carolina 386 U.S. 213 (1967) - referred to. H 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A 2.3 Prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Cr.P.C. of 1973 contains a new proviso which has the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.