In Brief
The Supreme Court considered whether an IPS officer's prolonged suspension (over six years) pending criminal trial was justified, and whether the disciplinary charge memo issued against him was valid. The Court held that Rule 8(4) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 mandatorily requires the disciplinary authority to approve the charge memo separately—approval given only at the initiation stage is insufficient. Following Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, the Court upheld the High Court's quashing of the disciplinary proceedings. On suspension, the Court found that prolonged suspension without concrete evidence of witness tampering or misbehaviour is unjustifiable, especially when the criminal trial was dormant and bail conditions imposed no violations. The Court upheld reinstatement but noted the State could assign him to a non-sensitive post.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.