23 April 2024 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Corruption >> Criminal Law  

A former government clerk was unsuccessful in his attempt to overturn a suspension order from over a decade ago. The petitioner, who was acquitted of criminal charges in a separate case, argued that the departmental suspension should also be revoked. However, the court dismissed the petition due to a significant delay and the finality of a previous court decision.

Background:

The petitioner, who worked as a clerk, was suspended from his job between 2001 and 2011. He faced criminal charges during this period but was ultimately acquitted by the court. However, departmental proceedings resulted in a suspension order for the same timeframe.

Reasons for Dismissal:

The court rejected the petition for several reasons:

• Delay in Filing: The petitioner waited five years after the initial suspension order to challenge it. The court deemed the explanation for the delay - a mistake by a lawyer - insufficient.
• Previous Court Decision: A separate court bench had already upheld the suspension order, making it a final decision that could not be revisited by the current court.
• Separate Proceedings: The court emphasized the distinction between criminal and departmental proceedings. Even though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, the departmental process, based on a separate investigation, could still result in a suspension.

Court Observations:

The court acknowledged that the departmental suspension order was thorough and well-reasoned. There were no apparent flaws or unreasonable elements found within the order itself.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition with no cost order. This case highlights the importance of timely legal action and the separate nature of departmental proceedings from criminal trials.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988