The duty of the decision-making authority to provide a reasoned and speaking order in continued suspension cases, and the need to consider all relevant facts and circumstances.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. 1. Order dated June 01, 2012 allowing OA No.495/2012 filed by the respondent has been questioned by the petitioners.

2. 2. Continued suspension of the respondent has been quashed with a direction that the respondent be reinstated with legally admissible consequential benefits, and the latter direction would obviously mean that the respondent would be entitled to be paid wages for the work done when he joins and not that he would be entitled to the difference in wages receivable and the subsistence allowance paid during period of suspension, and to this extent the apprehensions expressed by the writ petitioners as if the writ petitioners have to pay back-wages is incorrect.

3. 3. The respondent, a 1985 batch officer of the Indian Revenue Service was suspended

as per order dated December 28, 1999 which was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated January 17, 2003 when OA No.783/2000 filed by the respondent was allowed, but with liberty granted to the appellants to pass a fresh order after considering all the relevant facts. The respondent was once again suspended on April 25, 2003; challenge whereto failed.

1. 4. That was the end of the issue pertaining to the respondent being suspended.

2. 5. But, law requires continued suspension to be reassessed every six months and when the continued suspension orders started hurting the respondent by the year 2010 inasmuch as by said year he had remained suspended for 10 years, he filed OA No.2842/2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal questioning the decisions taken to continue with his suspension, which application was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal on December 16, 2011, noting that 12 years had lapsed and certain important aspects of the matter pertaining to the respondent’s continued suspension were ignored when the decision was last taken to continue the suspension. Exhaustive directions were issued to the Special Review Committee, which considers matters pertaining to continued suspension, warranting the committee to reconsider the matter in the context of the directions issued by the Tribunal. The reason was that these points which were urged by the respondent were ignored by the Special Review Committee. The Tribunal permitted the Committee to obtain the view of CBI with respect to the representation made by the respondent against his continued suspension.

3. 6. Reconsidering the matter, vide order dated January 12, 2012, but before obtaining comments from the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Review Committee passed an order on January 12, 2012 recommending continued suspension of the respondent and the said order simply records till paragraph 8 thereof the history of the litigation fought by the respondent and thereafter the opinion in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:-

“9. Whereas, taking into account all facts and circumstances, the Competent Authority is of the view that it is not feasible to pass a reasoned and speaking order considering all points raised in the impugned CAT’s order at this juncture. As directed by the Tribunal, the order under consideration may be passed after the CBI’s report is received.

10. Accordingly, the Competent Authority has decided to continue the suspension of the

officer, meanwhile, …………..”

7. Thereafter, on receiving comments from CBI the Committee passed another order on February 03, 2012, till paragraph 8 whereof though with some change of words, same facts pertaining to the history as were recorded in the order dated January 12, 2012 were re-noted and thereafter in paragraph 10 the comments received from CBI were noted. The operative part of the order, in paragraph 10 reads as under:-

“Whereas, taking into all facts and circumstances including the facts and comments construed in the CBI’s report, the Competent Authority has decided that suspension of the officer may be continued

2. 8. This led the respondent to file OA No.495/2012 before the Central Administrati