Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JJ.
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Rajnesh Singh, S/o. Shri S.R. Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 6750 of 2021
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Suspension - All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - The court held that the State Government was competent to continue suspension beyond one year based on the recommendations of the Review Committee of the State, as the period during which the disciplinary proceeding remained stayed due to orders of a Court of Law, was excluded from the limit of one year as referred to in the first proviso of Rule 3(1B).
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) partly allowing an Original Application (OA) filed by the applicant, who was suspended in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The CAT quashed the orders extending the suspension period beyond one year and directed the revocation of suspension with consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Government was competent to continue the suspension beyond one year based on the recommendations of the Review Committee of the State, as the period of stay due to orders of a Court of Law was excluded from the limit of one year as per Rule 3(1B). The court set aside the order of the CAT and allowed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State Government was competent to continue the suspension of the applicant beyond one year in violation of Rule 3(1B) of the Rules of 1969.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government's power to continue suspension beyond one year was not in violation of Rule 3(1B) as the period of stay due to orders of a Court of Law was excluded from the limit of one year. The court interpreted the provisions of Rule 3(1B) and emphasized that the necessity of obtaining the recommendation of the Central Ministry's Review Committee was obviated in such circumstances.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the CAT and allowed the writ petition, holding that the State Government was competent to continue the suspension beyond one year based on the recommendations of the Review Committee of the State.
JUDGMENT :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.K. Behra, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Praveen Das and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant / respondent No. 1 herein as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General alongwith Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging an order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for short, the CAT) in Original Application No.203/573/2020 (for short, the OA) filed by the applicant by which the OA was partly allowed.
3. By the said OA, the applicant had challenged an order dated 09.02.2019 whereby, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, for short, “the Rules of 1969”, the applicant was suspended in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry as also the orders dated 08.04.2019, 05.08.2019, 30.01.2020 and 28.07.2020, whereby the period of suspension was extended in terms of Rule 3(8)(d) for a period of 120 days with effect from 09.04.2019, for a period of 180 days with effect from 06.08.2019, for a period of 180 days with effect from 01.02.2020, for a period of 180 days with effect from 29.07.2020 and for a period of 180 days with effect from 24.01.2021. The applicant had also challenged the order dated 28.09.2020 by which the appeal preferred by him was dismissed.
4. The order of suspension dated 09.02.2019, as translated by the applicant, reads as follows :
“Government of Chhattisgarh
Home (Police) Department
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan
Atal Nagar, Raipur
// Order //
Raipur, dated 09.02.2019
S.N./F-02-01/2019/ 2-Home / IPS : Whereas there is erroneous entry at complaint Sr. No.348/2014 dated 04.12.2014 in the office file/R-Complaint Register of Crime No. 09/2015 in State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Chhattisgarh and whereas it is contemplated to initiate Departmental action against Shri Rajnesh Singh IPS (CG-SPS) under All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 for violation of Rule 3 for the above Rules.
2. Whereas considering the above circumstances the State Government has decided that it is necessary to put Shri Rajnesh Singh, Superintendent of Police, District Narayanpur (C.G.) under suspension.
3. Now, therefore in exercise of the powers under Rules 3(1) of All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, the State Government hereby places Shri Rajnesh Singh IPS (CG-SPS) Superintendent of Police, District Narayanpur (C.G.) under suspension with immediate effect.
4. During the period of suspension the Headquarters of Shri Rajnesh Singh IPS (CG-SPS) shall be Police Headquarters, Raipur. During the period of suspension Shri Rajnesh Singh will be entitled to subsistence allowance as per rule.
In the name and by the order of Governor of Chhattisgarh
Sd/-
(Leena Kamlesh Mandavi)
Deputy Secretary
Home (Police) Department”
5. In the charge-sheet dated 06.03.2019, the following three charges were laid :
**vkjksi Øekad&01
Jh jtus'k flag] ¼Hkk0iq0ls0½ fnukad 05-12-2014 ls fnukad 14-07-2017 rd iqfyl v/kh{kd ,UVh djI'ku C;wjksa] ¼N0x0½ ds in ij inLFk Fks A bl vof/k ds nkSjku vius v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa ls o"kZ 2014 ds] dk;kZy;hu nLrkostksa ,oa vkj f'kdk;r jftLVj esa cSad MsV esa izfof"V;k¡ djok;k x;k A bl izdkj Jh jtus'k flag] dk mDr d`R; vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e&1968 ds fu;e 3 dk mYya?ku gS A
**vkjksi Øekad&02
Jh jtus'k flag] ¼Hkk0iq0ls0½ orZeku esa fuyafcr }kjk jkT; vkfFkZd vijk/k vUos"k.k C;wjksa ds vijk/k Øekad 09@2015 esa dk;eh fnukad ds iwoZ fu;eksa ,oa izko/kkuksa dk mYy?kau dj vke ukxfjdksa dk Qksu Vsfiax djk;k x;k ,oa mls foospuk ds nkSjku lk{; ds :i esa mi;ksx djk;k x;k rFkk dkWy Vsfiax ds tfj;sa izkIr tkudkjh dks U;k;ky; esa lk{; ds rkSj ij izLrqr djk;k x;k A bl izdkj Jh jtus'k flag] dk mDr d`R; vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e&1968 ds
AI
Suspension valid if reviewed by Committee before 90 days expiry even if formal order issued shortly after; identical provisions in CCS Rules and ESIC Regulations; competent authority includes Discipl....
The court upheld the legitimacy of the applicant's suspension extension under CCS (CCA) Rules due to ongoing criminal proceedings concerning moral turpitude, justifying the action despite the duratio....
Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.
Prolonged suspension of a government employee without timely inquiry or a reasoned order for extension is unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice and the right to a speedy trial.
Prolonged suspension of a government employee without timely inquiry and review is unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice and the right to a speedy trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
