VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

882 DECISION - 481
enquiry was ordered and while the enquiry was continuing, the State
Government promoted him on 7-4-77. The state Government could
not have excluded him from the zone of consideration, merely on the
ground that a preliminary enquiry was pending.
In such a situation the doctrine of condonation of misconduct
cannot be applied as to wash off the acts of misconduct which was
the subject matter of preliminary enquiry. Consequently the penalty
of withholding of two increments imposed on him by the State
Government by order dated 26-9-96 was valid and legal.
(481)
Suspension — continuance of
Order of suspension issued pending investigation
continues in operation after filing of the charge
sheet.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. G.A. Ethiraj,
1999(1) SLJ SC 112
The Supreme Court observed that the respondent, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, was involved in a case of corruption and
was placed under suspension until further orders by order dated 22-
8-95. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and
set aside the order of suspension holding that the charge sheet had
already been filed against him and that the premise on which the
order of suspension was passed is no longer in existence since the
stage of investigation is already over and a charge sheet has been
filed and as such the order of suspension cannot survive any further.
Supreme Court held that the respondent was placed under
suspension till further orders and the order was not confined to the
period of investigation. After the completion of the investigation, the
charge sheet has been filed. This means that as a result of the filing
of the charge sheet the reason for keeping the respondent under
suspension continues and it cannot be said that the said reason has
ceased to exist after the filing of the charge sheet.