Vikash Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The High Court held that the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI & Anr. does not lay down an absolute proposition that suspension cannot be continued beyond three months if a charge sheet is not served within that period or if served without a reasoned order of extension. The Court found that the issue of challenging an order of suspension must be analyzed on the facts of each case, considering the gravity of the charges and applicable rules. It noted that revocation of suspension with a direction for posting in a non-sensitive post cannot be a matter of course. In the present case, the petitioner faces serious charges of aiding in smuggling, committing drawback frauds, and other anti-departmental activities, with sanction granted for prosecution in some cases and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. Proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and departmental proceedings were also initiated. The Court found sufficient reasons for the delay in issuing the charge sheet due to ongoing investigations by various agencies. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner's continued suspension did not warrant interference, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Vikash Kumar, an Indian Revenue Service officer, challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing his plea to revoke his suspension. He was placed under suspension on November 10, 2017, due to contemplated major penalty proceedings. His initial challenge to continued suspension was dismissed by the Tribunal on December 14, 2018, with a direction to file a charge memo within three months and reconsider suspension. The petitioner then filed a fresh OA challenging subsequent suspension extension orders from January 31, 2019, to July 15, 2021, and sought reinstatement with full pay and allowances. The Tribunal dismissed this OA on May 20, 2022, noting that investigations were ongoing and recommending further action for charge sheet issuance. The petitioner's writ petition before the High Court challenged the Tribunal's dismissal order, arguing prolonged suspension was arbitrary and illegal, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continued suspension of the petitioner beyond three months without a charge memo, despite Tribunal directions, is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with immediate effect and full pay and allowances from January 31, 2019, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the continued suspension violated rules and previous Tribunal directions, as a charge memo had not been issued. He contended that the delay in issuing the charge memo was solely attributable to the respondents and contrary to DoPT OMs. He cited numerous judgments, including Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI & Anr., to support the claim that prolonged suspension without charge sheet is illegal. He also argued that his transfer did not lead to reinstatement. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents reiterated their stand before the Tribunal, explaining that the petitioner was under investigation for suspected fraudulent exports, aiding in smuggling, and committing drawback frauds. They stated he was made a co-noticee in a supplementary show-cause notice. The respondents argued that the charges were serious, involving bribe demands and acceptance, and that investigations by multiple agencies were ongoing, justifying the continued suspension.