Referencer Library - Judgements in Service Matters
(Page 3)

Service Matters - Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration: 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. Indubitably the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of common law jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that – "We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right." - Guidelines on speedy trial - If bail to an accused of a heinous crime, suspension cannot continue : 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. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal - Appeal Allowed. Case Law »

06-05-2014

DR SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Vs UNION OF INDIA

15-04-2014

KAKALI GHOSH Vs CHIEF SECRETARY ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND ORS

31-10-2013

T S R SUBRAMANIAN & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Civil Services Board (CSB): CSB, consisting of high ranking in service officers, who are experts in their respective fields, with the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre and Chief Secretary at the State level, could be a better alternative (till the Parliament enacts a law), to guide and advise the State Government on all service matters, especially on transfers, postings and disciplinary action, etc., though their views also could be overruled, by the political executive, but by recording reasons, which would ensure good governance, transparency and accountability in governmental functions. Parliament can also under Article 309 of the Constitution enact a Civil Service Act, setting up a CSB, which can guide and advice the political executive transfer and postings, disciplinary action, etc. CSB consisting of experts in various fields like administration, management, science, technology, could bring in more professionalism, expertise and efficiency in governmental functioning. The Centre, State Governments and the Union Territories directed to constitute such Boards with high ranking serving officers, who are specialists in their respective fields, within a period of three months, if not already constituted, till the Parliament brings in a proper legislation in setting up CSB. Minimum Tenure to Civil servants: Repeated shuffling/transfer of the officers is deleterious to good governance. Minimum assured service tenure ensures efficient service delivery and also increased efficiency. They can also prioritize various social and economic measures intended to implement for the poor and marginalized sections of the society. The Centre, State Governments and the Union Territories directed to issue appropriate directions to secure providing of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants, within a period of three months. Oral Orders/instructions: the civil servants cannot function on the basis of verbal or oral instructions, orders, suggestions, proposals, etc. and they must also be protected against wrongful and arbitrary pressure exerted by the administrative superiors, political executive, business and other vested interests. If the civil servant is acting on oral directions or dictation of anybody, he will be taking a risk, because he cannot later take up the stand, the decision was in fact not his own. Recording of instructions, directions is, therefore, necessary for fixing responsibility and ensure accountability in the functioning of civil servants and to uphold institutional integrity. State Governments and the Union Territories directed to issue directions like Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, in their respective States and Union Territories, which will be carried out within three months. Case Law »

18-10-2013

B AMRUTHA LAKSHMI IRRINKI SRINAGESH Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS

Selection into IAS from State Government Officers - Rules have to be strictly followed: If the rules for selection contain a requirement, the same has to be applied uniformly and strictly, and none from the eligible group can be eliminated from being considered on any criteria, other than those which are provided in the rules. If there is a criteria laid down for selection, the Administration has to confine to the same, and it cannot impose an additional criterion over and above whatever has been laid down. If that is done, it will no longer remain an exercise of discretion, but will result into discrimination. It will mean treating similarly situated employees dissimilarly, and denying equal opportunity to some of them in the matter of public employment on the basis of a criterion which is not laid down, resulting into violation of Articles 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. If the rules were to provide that in the event of large number of persons coming into the zone of consideration, the names of the senior most alone will be forwarded, then it would have been a different situation. In the absence any such restrictive rule, as in the present case, the decision of the respondents cannot be justified - the decision was violative of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution, since it was arrived at on the basis of a criterion which was not laid down - Non-consideration of appellant's name contrary to Rules - damages awarded: those who are responsible for administration cannot trample upon the rights of others: the appellant had to resort to this litigation for no fault of hers. The non consideration of her claim was totally unjust. Hence, even though the appellant can not get the relief in the nature of a direction to consider her for the selection which she had sought, she must get the damages for non-consideration on unjust grounds. This is because, the Commissioner for Commercial Tax had acted to reduce the zone of consideration, contrary to the rules, and in spite of a letter dated 01.07.2010 from the Principal Secretary Revenue (CT-I) Department, which had clarified that the Commissioner may send the proposals of the eligible candidates of the cadre of Assistant Commissioners and above, who were of outstanding merit. The award of damages is necessary also because, a message must go down that those who are responsible for administration of the State cannot trample upon the rights of others on the grounds which are unsustainable in law. State of Andhra Pradesh directed to pay the damages of rupees fifty thousand to the appellant. This will be over and above the litigation cost of rupees twenty five thousand, which is awarded. It will be open to the State Government to recover these amounts from the then Commissioner of Commercial Tax, and/or whoever were the officers responsible for the non-consideration of the claim of the appellants - Appeal partly allowed. Case Law »

01-10-2013

ANIL KUMAR & ORS Vs. M.K. AIYAPPA & ANR.

05-09-2013

UNION OF INDIA Vs. B.V. GOPINATH, K.K. KAPILA, SUDHIR RANJAN SENAPATI, S.K. SRIVASTAVA, H.A. SIDDIQUI, VARINDER MEHTA, PAUL GEORGE

14-08-2013

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS Vs. JITENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ANR.

03-07-2013

C.V. FRANCIS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

17-11-2011

UNION OF INDIA & ANR Vs. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ETC.

Referencer Library - Judgements in Service Matters (Page 3)

Referencer Library - Judgements in Service Matters
(Page 3)