Jump to content
Sajib Nandi

Supreme Court fixes 90-day limit for suspension of govt employees

Recommended Posts

Sajib Nandi

Reported by Timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Feb 17, 2015

Supreme Court fixes 90-day limit for suspension of govt employees - The Times of India

 

Protracted period of suspension of delinquent government employee has become a norm and such practice must be curbed, the Supreme Court on Monday said while fixing a period of ninety 90 days for authorities to complete proceedings against such an employee.

 

The court said that an employee suffered ignominy and scorn of society due to prolonged period of suspension. "We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months ... if within this period the memorandum of charges/chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officeremployee," a bench headed by Justice Vikaramajit Sen said. It said suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is 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," the bench said.

 

"Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. 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 misdemeanour or offence," the bench said The court passed the order on a petition filed by defence estate officer Ajay Kumar Choudhary who was kept suspended for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

This is a good judgement as earlier they used to SUSPEND pending contemplation of disciplinary case and after 90 days they are REVIWING(Only on paper) and again extending 6 ,months and these unforunate people are suffering mentally and finacially and also a STGMA and I am also fighiting these cases across the country very recently dealt TWO cases in PORT BLAIR Andamans and got them REINSTATED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Mr. Himanshu J. Mehta Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ahmedabad.
       
      Appeal No. 111/ICPB/2006 In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.
       
      Appellant: Mr. Himanshu J. Mehta
      Public authority: Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ahmedabad. Sh. S.S.Nair - CPIO Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – Appellate Authority.
       
       
       
      FACTS: The appellant vide his communication dated 21.12.2005 addressed to the CPIO had sought the following information, followed by first appeal dated 23.2.2006 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner : i. Allotment of Provident Fund Code No.GJ/28322 allotted to M/s Tectona Soft Solution (Pvt) Ltd. ii. Copy of the Application submitted by M/s Tectona Soft Solution (Pvt) Ltd. iii. Copy of the Notification of the Provident Fund Commissioner applying the provisions of the Act. iv. Copy of the Letter of Authority used by Mahesh Shah to appear before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in proceedings initiated u/s 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act. v. Copy of the proceedings which have been attended by Mahesh Shah on behalf of the company M/s. Tectona Soft Solution (Pvt) Ltd. By a letter dated 7.4.2006, the Public Authority informed the appellant that hearing in the above matter has been scheduled on 21.4.2006 during which the documents sought for by the appellant could be handed over. The appellant filed an appeal before the AA on 17.4.2006. Since he did not get any reply from AA, he filed the present appeal. Comments were called for from CPIO. Pointing out that proceedings had been initiated against M/S Tectona Soft Solution Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act which is pending has contended that the matter is pending before a quasi judicial authority. It has also been stated in the comments that the appellant has already been advised that whatever documents had been sought for would be furnished to him during the proceedings but no body has so far appeared on behalf of the establishment. In his elaborate rejoinder, the appellant has contended that the provisions of EPF was not applicable at all to the establishment and has sought for directions to the CPIO to furnish the information asked for by the appellant.
       
       
      DECISIONI find from the reply of the CPIO that he has not taken shelter under any of the exemptions provided under Section 8 of the Act but has only informed the appellant that the documents could be handed over during the course of the hearing. Since the appellant has claimed himself to be the advocate for M/S Tectona Soft Solutions (Pvt) Ltd, on his producing an authority from the said company, the CPIO will furnish all the information sought for by the appellant within 15 days from the receipt of the authority from the company as I find that the information sought for is not exempt under any of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. In so far as the contention of the appellant in his rejoinder that EPF Act is not applicable to the company, this Commission has no powers to enquire into such matters.
       
      Sd/-
      (Padma Balasubramanian)
      Information Commissioner
       
       
       
    • crusader
      By crusader
      I want to know that I have got information from Nagar nigam, Can I use it as an evidence in the court of law? What are the provisions related to that?

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy