The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with a case of
continued suspension of a Central Government employee since September 2011 observed,
that Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially
transitory or 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 would render it
punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence
with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of
the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay.
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,
indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged,
it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to
come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much
too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement.
If Parliament considered it necessary that a
person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though
accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should
not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a
Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet has not been served on the suspended person .
No comments:
Post a Comment