The suspension order should not extend beyond three months if the charge sheet is not served, and a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.

G.S.SISTANI, J.

CM No. 26454/2016 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6456/2016 & CM No. 26453/2016 (Stay)

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 25th May, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ in short) by which an OA filed by the respondent herein stands allowed and the order of suspension from the date of his arrest i.e. 20th September, 2013 has been quashed. The Tribunal has also directed that the applicant/respondent herein shall be posted to a place where he cannot influence or tamper with the evidence against him in the criminal case. The Tribunal has also directed that in the event, a charge sheet is filed against the applicant/respondent herein, during this period a reasoned order must be passed if the suspension is to be further extended.

2. Some necessary facts, which are required to be noticed are that the respondent herein is a Medical Officer belonging to Delhi Health Services Cadre and was posted at Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, when, he was arrested on 20th September, 2013 on the basis of an FIR No. 16/2013 registered against him at the Police Station Anti Corruption Branch for the offence punishable under Sections 8, 12 &13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 417 & 418 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) on the allegations of giving bribe to a person, who had made some complaint against him. The respondent was released on bail by the order of the Special Judge dated 1st November, 2013. He reported for duty on 4th November, 2013, but he was not permitted to join. By an order dated 20th November, 2013, he was placed under deemed suspension from the date of his arrest i.e. 20th September, 2013 and the period of suspension of the respondent has been extended from time to time as required under Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The subsistence allowance has been enhanced to 75% of his deemed salary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to take into consideration that an FIR filed by the Anti Corruption Branch is pending against him and upon his arrest, an order of deemed suspension was passed against him. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 516, wherein it has been held that if the authorities feel that the suspension needs to be continued and merely because it is for a long period, that would not invalidate the suspension. Counsel further submits that the respondent herein was involved in offence of corruption punishable under Sections 8, 12 &13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 417 & 418 read with Section 120-B of IPC, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered against him and the matter is still under investigation and it is for this reason, he was not allowed to resume his duties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and another v. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1, wherein, the order of the Allahabad High Court quashing the order of suspension of the respondent was set aside.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have posted two basic questions to learned counsel for the petitioner, the first one being, as to whether any departmental inquiry has been initiated against the respondent and the second one being as to whether, any charge sheet has been filed in the criminal court from the date of registration of the FIR against the respondent, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner answered in the negative.

6. While, there can be no quarrel to the proposition that merely because a period of suspension is long, that by itsel