Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 6697/2011
VED PRAKASH GAUTAM Petitioner
Through Rambir Chouhan, Adv.
W.P.(C) 6697/2011
VED PRAKASH GAUTAM Petitioner
Through Rambir Chouhan, Adv.
VERSUS
D.D.A. AND ANR Respondent
•f Through
IT
•f Through
IT
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
15.09.2011 Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and
227 ofthe Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner has assailed the legal pregnability ofthe order dated 1''February, 2011 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, 'the tribunal') in
O.A.No.730/2011 wherein the tribunal has declined to interfere with the order extending the period ofsuspension on the ground that an FIR
No.15/2009 under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 has been registered against him. It was contended before the tribunal that it was obligatory on the part ofthe respondent employer to explain why the petitioner should be put under suspension.
The tribunal adverted tovarious facets and came to hold that the
2011:DHC:16398-DB f V yy order of suspension and the continuance thereof cannot be found fault with. Be it noted, the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case Under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The employer has no control over the said proceedings. Had it been disciplinary proceedings, the question of continuance of the order of suspension for extension of period of suspension could havebeen subject matterofpossibledebate.
We find no reason and justification to quash the order of suspension, interject with the matter and revoke the order ofsuspension. Ordinarily courts should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without prima facie evidence on record. Our view gets fructified by the decision rendered in U.F. Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad Vs. Sanjiv Rajan (1993) Supp 3SCC 483.
Inthe result, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and thesame stands dismissed inlimine without any order as tocosts.
CHIEF JUSTICE
^ - SANJIV KHANNA,J SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 NA^ 2011:DHC:16398-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
15.09.2011 Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and
227 ofthe Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner has assailed the legal pregnability ofthe order dated 1''February, 2011 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, 'the tribunal') in
O.A.No.730/2011 wherein the tribunal has declined to interfere with the order extending the period ofsuspension on the ground that an FIR
No.15/2009 under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 has been registered against him. It was contended before the tribunal that it was obligatory on the part ofthe respondent employer to explain why the petitioner should be put under suspension.
The tribunal adverted tovarious facets and came to hold that the
2011:DHC:16398-DB f V yy order of suspension and the continuance thereof cannot be found fault with. Be it noted, the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case Under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The employer has no control over the said proceedings. Had it been disciplinary proceedings, the question of continuance of the order of suspension for extension of period of suspension could havebeen subject matterofpossibledebate.
We find no reason and justification to quash the order of suspension, interject with the matter and revoke the order ofsuspension. Ordinarily courts should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without prima facie evidence on record. Our view gets fructified by the decision rendered in U.F. Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad Vs. Sanjiv Rajan (1993) Supp 3SCC 483.
Inthe result, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and thesame stands dismissed inlimine without any order as tocosts.
CHIEF JUSTICE
^ - SANJIV KHANNA,J SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 NA^ 2011:DHC:16398-DB
JUDGMENT