- (1.) In this case it appears that the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings on october 10, 1994, but no charge-sheet was given for a pretty long time. Thereafter petitioner moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta bench and the Tribunal passed an order on June 22, 1995 to the extent that 'the respondents would initiate disciplinary proceedings by issue a charge-sheet, if any, within three months from the date of communication of the said order, in default of which the suspension order would stand cancelled and the petitioner would be paid all consequential benefits regarding arrears of pay and allowances'.
(2.) Thereafter a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner in terms of the said order passed by the Tribunal on June 22, 1995 within the time specified and that it appear that articles of charges were vague and wanting of material particulars. Petitioner again challenged the validity of the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately the Tribunal by the order dated July 29, 1997 allowed the application by quashing the charge-sheet dated September 8, 1995 and all proceeding subsequent to the issue of such charge-sheets were also quashed. After. quashing the charge-sheets Tribunal has given liberty to the respondents therein to frame charge-sheet afresh against the petitioner regarding the said events. It was further directed that since a lot of time has already elapsed, such charge-sheets should be issued within three months from the date of communication of the said order. The order of suspension was treated to valid and directed to continue subject to the order that the subsistence allowance should be enhanced retrospectively as per rule alongwith the arrears. Petitioner has moved this application on the ground that the order of suspension should not be allowed to continue by the Tribunal when it was found that the proceedings were illegal because of grounds stated by the Tribunal. It was submitted that subsistence allowance is a matter of course. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that within the time fixed by the Tribunal a fresh charge-sheet has been issued for continuing the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were not unnecessarily continuing or prolonging because of latches and/or negligence on the part of the petitioner, but because of inherent defects therein and further after the issue of the charge-sheets on October 10, 1994 no charge-sheet was given to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal dated June 22, 1995 and that the order of suspension was allowed to continue even after it was found that the disciplinary proceeding was illegal. This is not the way under which an employee should be kept under suspension and the matter should be prolonged. Whenever an order of suspension is passed in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, the authority concerned should issue charge-sheet within a reasonable time if the rule is silent, and the authority should conclude the same within a reasonable time and the employee cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period and the employer also cannot adopt a dilatary tactics to victimize the employee.
(3.) We are not satisfied with the conduct of the respondents in the manner in which the petitioner was kept under suspension. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we only direct that the order of suspension shall continue subject to the condition that the petitioner shall be paid his full pay and allowances as if he is in service, but he will not join until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Such disciplinary proceedings should be concluded as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of communication of this order. This is the only way to keep the balance regarding the loss caused by the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to co-operate with the authority concerned, so that proceedings should be concluded within the time specified. Since the allegations are very serious in nature, particularly the charge of criminal conspiracy and defalcation, it is fit and proper that the authority shall consider the prayer of the petitioner to represent his case through a Lawyer in proper manner so that the right of representation of the petitioner cannot be denied.;