Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Software Technology Parks Of ... on 9 April, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.12508/2006
% 9th April, 2015
SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K.Maheshwari, Adv.
versus
SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.K.Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India , petitioner impugns the suspension order dated 9.7.2004 and which
suspension order has been continued from time to time even during the
pendency of the present writ petition.
2. Admittedly, no departmental proceedings till date have been
initiated against the petitioner and that no charge-sheet has been issued
against the petitioner. Petitioner has in the meanwhile during the pendency
WP(C) 12508/2006 Page 1 of 5
of this case retired on 28.2.2009. Even after the retirement, though no
service rules have been cited before me and probably would not exist
enabling commencement of the departmental proceedings after retirement,
even after retirement, no departmental proceedings have been commenced
against the petitioner.
3. Petitioner was suspended by the order dated 9.7.2004 on the ground of
charges of financial misdemeanor inasmuch as he is said to have got five
buildings of the respondent no.1/employer/Software Technology Parks of
India constructed at Pune, Aurangabad, Nasik, Kolhapur and Nagpur in
collusion with various other officials by spending public money in an
irregular manner i.e without financial sanction or without administrative
approval of the competent authority for undertaking such works.
4. No doubt, charges against the petitioner were grave, however, all I
need to state is that it is settled law that suspension is not a form of
punishment. Suspension order is issued only as an aid to complete the
departmental proceedings including for the reason that charged officer
should not feel that he can tamper with the evidence and can further do
mischief although departmental proceedings are going on against him. This
WP(C) 12508/2006 Page 2 of 5
is so held in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126.
5. As already stated above that from 9.7.2004 till the petitioner retired on
28.2.2009, no charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and that till date
no charge-sheet has been issued and no departmental enquiry against the
petitioner is pending.
6. The stand of the respondent no.1 that there has been delay in view of
the deplorable condition of the record and technical evaluation required of
the five buildings which were constructed and including for lack of
measurement books etc, yet this stand/defence cannot be a ground that now
for a period of around 11 years, no departmental proceedings have been
initiated against the petitioner, and in the meanwhile as stated above
petitioner has already retired. The Supreme Court in the judgment in the
case of Union of India Vs.Raj Kishore Parija 1995 Supp (4) SCC 235 set
aside the suspension order where charge-sheet was served about four years
after suspension and enquiry could not be completed within five long years
later. In the present case, as already stated above, in fact no enquiry
proceedings have commenced against the petitioner till date ie for around 11
WP(C) 12508/2006 Page 3 of 5
years after issuing of the impugned suspension order dated 9.7.2004 and
which has been continued thereafter.
7. I may also state that the Supreme Court in its judgments in the cases
of O.P.Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1987 AIR 2257 and Union of
India & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 1 SCJ 115 has reiterated
the position that suspension is only an aid to disciplinary proceedings and
suspension cannot continue for an unduly long period.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 firstly sought to place
reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Government
of A.P. Vs. V. Sivaraman (1990) 3 SCC 57 to argue that there is no
automatic lapsing of the suspension order, however, this judgment will not
apply because I am not deciding the case on the ground of lapsing of
suspension order after expiry of original period or extended period of
suspension and suspension thereafter being only retrospectively extended
and as was done by the respondent in this case.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 then places reliance upon a
judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of State
of Tamil Nadu Vs. M.Veerappan, etc. 2005 LAB. I.C. 3233 wherein the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court refused to quash the suspension
WP(C) 12508/2006 Page 4 of 5
order for a long period. In the facts of the present case, however, in my opinion,
in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj
Kishore Parija(supra) the present is a fit case for quashing of the suspension
order more so because counsel for the respondent no.1 concedes that after
retirement no departmental proceedings in fact now can be initiated against the
petitioner as per rules.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
of suspension dated 9.7.2004 and orders passed thereafter which have
continued the suspension till date are quashed. Petitioner will be entitled to all
his service benefits as if he continued in the service with the respondent no.1,
however, in the peculiar facts of this case, it is held that petitioner is not entitled
to payment of any interest from the respondent no.1 with respect to the amount
of dues which will now be paid by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner. The
necessary dues will be calculated by the respondent no.1 and be paid to the
petitioner within a period of two months from today.
11. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
APRIL 09, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
