The Competent Authority is obliged to make a specific order under FR 54B(1) upon reinstatement of a government servant, and the tribunal cannot decide how the suspension period should be treated for purposes of pay and allowances.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The petitioner/ Union of India has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.4358/2013, whereby the respondent’s/ applicant’s O.A. has been allowed. The tribunal has held that the petitioner should not proceed further in pursuance of its notice dated 20.01.2014, whereby the respondent was asked to show cause as to why the period of suspension between 16.03.2010 and 08.12.2010 should not be treated as period not spent on duty, and why no pay and allowances – over and above the subsistence allowance already paid, should be paid to him. The tribunal has also directed the petitioner to take steps to make payment of salary and allowances payable to the respondent during the period of suspension, minus the subsistence allowance already paid to him, within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the impugned order.

2. The relevant facts may be noted. The respondent was serving as Deputy Director General, National Sample Survey Office (Field Operations Division), Bhuvneshwar since October 2007. At that stage, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings, an order of suspension was passed against the respondent – by resort to Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

3. The suspension of the respondent was extended on the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee for a period of 180 days beyond 13.06.2010 while enhancing the subsistence allowance to 75% of his pay vide order dated 11.06.2010. However, his suspension was thereafter revoked with effect from 08.12.2010 vide order dated 10.12.2010.

4. The respondent was thereafter issued a charge sheet on 03.05.2011 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Departmental proceedings were held against the respondent. In the meantime, he superannuated on 30.04.2012. The proceedings were continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Eventually, an order of penalty was passed on 10.10.2013 withholding 10% of the respondent’s pension for a period of five years. The said order imposing penalty upon the respondent has attained finality.

5. After passing of the order imposing penalty, the respondent initiated the aforesaid O.A. on or about 16.12.2013. He, effectively, sought a direction that the period of his suspension i.e. between 16.03.2010 to 07.12.2010 should be treated as spent on duty for all purposes. He also sought the release of his full salary and allowances for the said period along with interest. During the pendency of the O.A., the petitioner issued the aforesaid notice dated 20.01.2014 to the respondent.

6. The tribunal has allowed the O.A. by placing reliance on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Hira Lal v. Delhi Development Authority, 1995 (34) DRJ 30. The tribunal has also relied on its earlier order passed in the case of Girdhari Lal v. Delhi Administration & Ors. in O.A. No. 1508/1991. The tribunal has held that the petitioner should have passed an order under Fundamental Rule (FR) 54B(1), simultaneously with the revocation of the suspension, of the respondent and not having done so, the said order could not be passed in pursuance of the notice dated 20.01.2014 issued subsequently.

7. The submission of Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the interpretation adopted by the tribunal in respect of the obligation cast on the petitioner to pass an order under FR 54B(1) is erroneous. Mr. Bhardwaj submits that on a perusal of FR 54B, it does not appear that the same requires the government to pass an order under FR 54B(1) simultaneously with, or soon after the revocation of suspension of the government servant. Mr. Bhardwaj submits that the charge sheet in the present case was issued to the respondent, within about five months of the revocation of his suspension. Since the disciplinary proceedings stood initiated against the respondent, the p