Suspension from services on account of being accused in a criminal case
Guest
(Querist) 06 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
1.If a govt. employee is not suspended from his duties after he had been summoned as an accused in a criminal case by a first class magistrate, then What course of action should be adopted for same?
2.Is employer responsible for such irregularity?
3.What action against employer be initiated, if he continues such employee in services, without recording reasons in writing for doing so?
"PERTINENT TO SAY THAT THE OFFENCE INVOLVES MORAL TERPITUDE UNDER SECTION 354 IPC"
Guest
(Expert) 06 November 2011
The question arises, for whether the employee remained under police custody and for what period?
The answer depends upon the reply to the above question.
Guest
(Querist) 06 November 2011
I appreciate your response Dhingra Ji,But
if the offence is bailable and the accused get immediate bail, then what ?
Kindly quote the fraction of CCS rules, where an accused, against whome a prima facie criminal case involving moral turpitude had been made out, can be continued in a govt. position.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 07 November 2011
This is no ground for suspension.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2011
If the employee remained in police custody for 48 hours or more, the employee is deemed to have been suspended under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rule. His getting or not getting bail in that case would not have any effect, as the employer is bound to observe the provisions of rules.
If the employee did not remain in police custody for 48 hours or more, there would not be the case of deemed suspension, but the concerned disciplinary authority can at his discretion suspend the employee depending upon the gravity of the offense.
That is why, I asked you about the police custody and its duration. BUT, YOU PREFERRED NOT TO REPLY that part of my query.
Partial facts can only fetch wrong advice/opinions even from the most experienced experts for which you cannot hold any one responsible and cast aspersions on any one later.
So, it is always better to provide clear and correct information before asking opinion of experts.
Guest
(Querist) 07 November 2011
Dhingra ji,
even I dont understand, what the judiciary and police has done in this case.
its a complicated matter.
The officer caused humiliation and hindrance in joining at transfer posting of a lady employee.
Police was called and complaint was lodged regarding offences under 353,354, 506 etc.
Police did not register any case.
A complaint was filed before M.M.with application under 156(3).
M.M.called upon status report and some fabricated statements of spot witnesses were sent to the court without registration of any case.
M.M.without disposing off the application under 156(3), directly took the presummoning evidence and issued summons to the accused persons under cognizable section 354, 506 IPC and the application is still undisposed off.
What is this ?
later on high court granted a stay on the proceeding, which is still continued.
Nobody is explaining the truth.
I read over a lot of books and thousands of orders/citations of criminal law/cases and came to the conclusion that its just a malfeasance and collusion and an action against M.M. is also warranted.
Even if the M.M. has summoned the accused under IPC and a prima facie case had been made out, the accused has no right to remain on a govt. post pending trial without any recorded reasons for not doing so. Lateron, if convicted, he will be dismissd from the sevices with penalty.
Whats your view Dhingra Ji?
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2011
I can frankly say that unless full facts are revealed in one go you can get only divergent opinions.
Here you have not given any hint, who was the suspended employee (the lady or the officer, who was the officer who caused humiliation to whom and resisted joining of the lady employee, who lodged the police complaint (the lady or the officer) and against whom (the lady or the officer) but the FIR was not registered, who are the plaintiff and the defendant (the officer or lady employee).
So, any reply can get you far away from the real solution to the problem.
I don't think you can get any purposeful advice from any one on fragmented information and partial facts.
So, it would be better, if you consult some local service law professional by showing him all the related documents of the case.
Guest
(Querist) 07 November 2011
OBVIOUSLY SECTION 354 APPLIED AGAINST THE OFFICER AND COMPLAINT IS LODGED BY THE LADY.
I AM ASTOUNDED, WHT'S UNCLEAR?
IT'S SO SIMPLE IF SOMEBODY REALLY WISHES TO RESPOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT YOUR FAULT DHINGRA JI, EVEN HIGH COURT IS CONFUSED@#$!!!!!!!
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2011
May be my fault in not being able to presume anything about any unstated matter and to reply your query, but to the true notion of your user ID, "I am not God" to know all the happenings, who's who, what, where, when, why, and against whom did any one do, etc., without being properly explained.
Sorry dear, I can only say, confused and partly narrated information about the case can't get clear opinions.
Guest
(Querist) 07 November 2011
I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR SOME ASPECTS OF CRPC. DHINGRA JI, WELL I THANK YOU TO SPARE YOUR WORTHY TIME ON MY PAGE. THX AND GOOD BYE.
WHERE ARE ALL OTHER LD. EXPERTS ?
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2011
Thanks dear. But repeated avoidance of the desired information provides me some clue as if who can be the hero of the case.
But, probably you have forgotten that the facts should not be concealed from the doctor and the lawyer, if you want proper treatment or solution to your problem.
Please don't mind, I can guess, you may be the sufferer only on account of your arrogance in your organisation. Your arrogance also is evident from the style of your language used for others, when you stated, "WHERE ARE ALL OTHER LD. EXPERTS?" If you noticed on one of the pages of this site, on one of your earlier query, several experts resolved not to reply your queries. But still I tried to provide some solution to your puzzle by calling for some background information. But, you avoided the same.
Although, I suppose, you edited your edited your original question, but even that speaks about your query on Sec.354 IPC, which relates to "assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty," but now you preferred to ask for your clearance on some aspects of CrPC.
The title of your question speaks about "Suspension from services on account of being accused in a criminal case", but your amended question now did not state anything about your suspension having been made. Later you stated about "the accused having got bail," but you still avoided the duration of police custody.
I think you are just intermingling your court case and your departmental case, which need to be tackled quite separately. If you tend to create confusion, yourself, I am afraid, you won't be able to concentrate on your defence either in your court case or on your departmental case.
My sincer advice to you, better at first make your mind clear and concentrate on two aspects on merits of each case properly to defend your case.
Guest
(Querist) 07 November 2011
OOO HO,
DHINGRA JI, I BEG YOUR PARDEN,YOU TOTALLY GOT IT WRONG.
WE BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE WERE EMPLOYED TOGETHER AND MY WIFE WAS ABUSED BY THE SAID OFFICER AND SHE MADE THE SAID COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM.
SOON AFTER, DURING THE PENDENCY OF COURT CASE, WE BOTH WERE THROWN OUT OF OUR SERVICES FRAUDULENTLY BY THE SAME OFFICER JUST TO PRESSURIZE US.
WE ARE FIGHTING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS AGAINST THIS INJUSTICE.
NOW WE JUST WANT TO KNOW, WHAT SHOULD BE THE STATUS OF THAT OFFICER IN THE DEPARTMENT, WHILE HE IS CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE ?
POLICE DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AT ALL BUT M.M. ISSUED THE SUMMONS UNDER IPC.
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2011
The fact is that with your disintegrated partial information. any body can make wrong assessment about you and the case referred by you. I can very well guess your anguish about the system, which is full of corruption with one or the other form. But, unless you have the patience, humility and clarity in your expression, you may not be able to get adequate help of the professionals.
Proper analysis and planning was quite necessary in tackling your problems. I can now guess, that was wanting at the time when the action to throw you out of the employment was taken by your organisation.
Now, you just need to effectively represent your present case before the court through some learned and capable lawyer. I can say, you can still resort to damage control through proper planning and presentation.
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 07 November 2011
I can guess, you may be the sufferer only on account of your arrogance in your organisation. Your arrogance also is evident from the style of your language used for others, when you stated, "WHERE ARE ALL OTHER LD. EXPERTS?" If you noticed on one of the pages of this site, on one of your earlier query, several experts resolved not to reply your queries.
-----Quote from Rev. P.S.Dhingra.
Now, you just need to effectively represent your present case before the court through some learned and capable lawyer.
------Excellent reply by Mr. P.S.Dhingra.
Guest
(Expert) 07 November 2011
Mr. Bhagat,
Thanks for your compliments please.
Guest
(Querist) 08 November 2011
Mr. Bhagat, Dhingra ji posted these comments under a misunderstanding.
Its not arrogance but anguish rightly noticed by Dhingra Ji.
The counsels engaged by us were bought by the department & accused persons and they committed forgery in the plaint and argued against us in the court ridiculously, Now what to do ?
My initial query is still unresolved, "what must be the status of the accused officer in the department after he has been summoned as an accused under IPC" ?
Will you enlightened person take pain to resolve it ?
I hope so.
It can solve the whole case.
Guest
(Expert) 08 November 2011
I hope, I don't need to remind you about the reason for misunderstanding, as my previous postings very well speak about that.
About your presenent query, initially you asked specifically about suspension of officer under the CCS (CCA) Rules, which I replied. However, if the accused officer is punished with imprisonment by the court of law under sec.354 IPC, he can be straightaway dismissed from service, without even issue of any charge sheet to him, under the provisions of Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Guest
(Querist) 08 November 2011
Lot of employees had been suspended on account of their involvement in criminal cases, then why not this officer ?
I am leaving this site for ever and will never visit again in future as it has only enhanced my confusion and the whole law under books becomes a mockery before practical law narrated by experts here.
My account being bugged & monitered.
Guest
(Expert) 08 November 2011
Again a sign of arrogance in the concluding post by the querist!
