UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 22-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 629 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
A 
B 
Suspension -
Renewal of, after suspension order c 
quashed by Tribunal - Legality of- Criminal cases pending 
against delinquent officer -
Officer placed under suspension 
- Departmental proceedings also initiated - Suspension 
reviewed from time to time - Tribunal quashing suspension 
orders with certain directions -
Order not challenged -
0 
Further suspension orders passed irrespective the order of 
Tribunal -
Quashed by Tribunal -
Held: It was not 
permissible for appellants to pass any fresh order of 
suspension till the commencement of trial before criminal 
court- Tribunal and High Court were right that appellants had 
E 
not followed the directions of Tribunal and the mandate of 
Department's O.M. dated 7.1.2004 -
The terms of the said 
0. M. were required to be observed -
Subsequent order of 
suspension was a nullity - More so, the issue could not have 
been re-agitated by virtue of the application of doctrine of res 
judicata - It is a clear case of legal malice - Constitution of 
F 
India, 1950 - Arts. 14 and 16 - Administrative law - Legal 
malice -
0. M. dated 7.1.2004-Res judicata. 
Suspension order - Held: Should be pa$sed only where 
there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and 
G 
if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant 
imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from 
service, or reduction in rank etc.- CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 
are a self contained code and the order of suspension can 
629 
H 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A be examined in the light of the statutory provisions to 
determine as to whether the suspension order was justified -
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 1965 - r. 10(6). 
8 
Suspension order - Judicial review of - Held: Long 
period of suspension does not make the order of suspension 
invalid -
Whether the employee should or should not 
continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a matter 
to be assessed by disciplinary authority concerned and 
C ordinarily court should not interfere with orders of suspension 
unless they are passed in ma/a fide and without there being 
even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the 
employee with the misconduct in question. 
D 
Suspension - Connotation and effect of - Explained. 
Representation - Held: May be considered by competent 
authority if it is so provided under the statutory provisions and 
the court should not pass an order directing any authority to 
decide the representation for the reasons that many a times, 
E unwarranted or time-barred claims are sought to be 
entertained before the authority. 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Art. 136 - Exercise of jurisdiction under - Explained -
F Held: Jn the instant case, appellants having acted 
unreasonably and illegally, are not entitled to relief before the 
Court. 
The respondent, an Officer belonging to the Indian 
Revenue Service and during the relevant time on 
G deputation to Enforcement Directorate as Deputy Director 
(Enforcement), was put under suspension since 
28.12.1999 in view of the pendency of two criminal cases 
against him duly investigated by the Central Bureau of 
Investigation. The suspension order was reviewed from 
H 
UNION OF IND!A v. ASHOK KU:v1AR AGGARWAL 
53• 
time to time. The respondent filed an OA before the A 
Tribunal seeking to quash the suspension order. The 
Tribunal, by order dated 16.12.2011, directed the 
appellants to convene a meeting of the Special Review 
Committee (SRC) to consider revocation or continuation 
of suspension of the respondent after taking into B 
consideration various factors mentioned in its order. 
Thereafter, as recommended by the SRC, the competent 
authority, by orders dated 12.1.2102 and 3.2.2012, 
decided to continue the suspension of the respondent. 
The respondent challenged the said orders by filing c 
another OA before the Tribunal, which, by order dated 
1.6.2012, quashed the orders impugned holding that the 
earlier directions given by the Tribunal on 16.12.2011 had 
not been complied with. The writ petition filed by the 
appellants was dismissed the High Court. 
It was contended for the appellants that though the 
respondent had been under suspension for 14 years, but 
in view of the gravity of the charges against him in the 
discipli

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.