A person cannot be penalized, when there is a delay in investigation on the part of the investigating authority – High Court of Delhi.
Where the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had confirmed to submit the final report to the Jurisdictional Commissionerate within 2 months and had not filed any chargesheet or issued any charge memo for 2 years, then in such case for the delay in investigation, one cannot be penalised. A divisional Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla, in the matter of Union of India and Ors Vs. Vikram Bhasin (W.P.(C) 6079/2021), dealt with an issue where a Writ petition was filed Challenging an order dated 11th May 2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. As submitted by the counsel of the petitioner, the respondent was posted in the office of the Commissioner of Customs at IGI Airport as superintendent (Jewellery Appraiser). The respondent was placed under suspension from 3rd June 2019, initially for a period of 90 days. Later the suspension got extended from time to time in the spells of 180 days. The order of Suspension was issued to the respondent only after the arrest of the respondent on 31st May 2019. Further, the counsel of the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding and there was no reference to any criminal case, much less, to the factum of the arrest. Also, the tribunal directed discontinuation of the respondent’s suspension as well as directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service. Moreover, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had informed the petitioner that the final investigation report would be submitted to the jurisdictional Commissionerate for further action within two months. The court stated that despite a delay of 2 years neither any charge memo was issued to the petitioner, nor any chargesheet had been filed. Court also observed that- “the Investigating Authorities have had more than sufficient time to conclude the investigation. For any delay in investigation, the applicant/respondent cannot be penalised”. Thereby the court dismissed the writ petition along with the pending applications and, in agreement with the reasoning of the tribunal, the court directed that where the respondent is to be paid subsistence allowance equivalent to his salary, then the petitioner might as well utilize his services.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 05th July 2021 W.P.(C) 6079 2021 & CM APPLs.19252 19253 2021 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE ..... Through: Mr. Y.P. Singh Advocate. VIKRAM BHASIN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajesh Luthra Advocate. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA MANMOHAN J.The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 11th May 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.871 2021. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent was posted as Superintendent in the office of Commissioner of Customs at IGI Airport and was serving on the same post till his suspension. He states that on 03rd June 2019 the respondent was placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. He states that his suspension was initially for W.P.(C) 6079 2021 a period of ninety days and thereafter it was extended from time to time in the spells of one hundred and eighty days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in the impugned the Tribunal has directed the suspension of applicant respondent shall not be continued once the present extension of time expires. He states that the Tribunal further directed that the applicant respondent be reinstated in service soon thereafter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the suspension was resorted to in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and that there was no reference to any criminal case much less to the factum of arrest. He submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the initial order of suspension was issued on 03rd June 2019 i.e. only after the arrest of the respondent on 31st May 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vide letter dated 14th June 2021 has informed the petitioner that that the final investigation report shall be submitted to the jurisdictional commissionerate for further action within two However this Court finds that despite the lapse of two years neither any chargesheet has been filed nor any charge memo has been issued to the applicant respondent. As far as the issue of suspension of the petitioner and extension thereof this Court is of the view that the Investigating Authorities have had more than sufficient time to conclude the investigation. For any delay in investigation the applicant respondent cannot be penalised. This Court is also in W.P.(C) 6079 2021 agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the applicant applicant has now to be paid subsistence allowance equivalent to his salary it would serve no purpose not to utilise his services. Accordingly this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction and the present writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction of the Commissioner of Customs states that the impugned order shall be complied with within fifteen days. The statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted by this Court. It is directed that in the event the aforesaid statement is complied with then no contempt proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner and or its 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e mail. MANMOHAN J NAVIN CHAWLA J JULY 05 2021 W.P.(C) 6079 2021 