VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

954 DECISION - 535
Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India,
2002(3) SLJ CAT Ahmedabad 142
The applicant was placed under suspension on the sole
ground that criminal cases are under trial against him in the court of
the Special Judge, Delhi but when the order was passed i.e. on 18-
7-2000, there was no case pending against him in the court of Special
Judge, Delhi. The Special Judge had as far back as 22-1-1998
refused to take cognizance of the charge sheets filed in his court
against the applicant and consigned six charge sheets to the record
room. There was no case pending against the applicant in the court
of the Special Judge, Delhi or any other court, in respect of the FIR
referred to in the suspension order. When no case was pending for
trial against him on the date of the impugned order or even prior to
that, there was no reason to exercise the powers under sub-rule (3)
of Rule 3 of the All-India Services (D&A) Rules, 1969. The order of
suspension therefore according to the applicant is liable to be
quashed.
The Tribunal held that merely because the word ‘under trial’
is used in the suspension order, it cannot be said that as no trial had
commenced, the power to suspend the applicant was exercised on
the non existing facts and as such the order was nonest and hence,
a void order.
So far the submissions that the order was passed on the
ground of non existent facts and that on the day on which the order
was passed there was no trial pending and therefore the order is
vitiated on account of the order being in abuse of powers, the Tribunal
observed that the order can be said to be passed in abuse of powers
if the same does not satisfy the ingredients of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3
of the AIS (D&A) Rules , 1969. If any of the ingredients i.e.
investigation, inquiry or trial was pending, then obviously the
Government had power to resort to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and suspend
the member of the service. In the instant case it is no doubt true that
the charge sheets were consigned to record room but then the
accused in those charge sheets were not discharged or acquitted by
the Special Judge. On the contrary, the liberty was given to the