The government is obliged to record reasons for the extension of suspension, and the tribunal's role is to examine administrative action and, if necessary, require the government to fulfill its statutory obligation.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

Cav. No.815/2017

Since the caveator has put in appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

C.M. No. 33424/2017

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8134/2017 & C.M. No. 33423/2017

1. Learned counsel for the respondent/ caveator has appeared. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. With their consent, we proceed to dispose of the petition at this stage itself.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition to assail the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1785/2017. The respondent/ applicant had preferred the said O.A. to assail his continuing suspension which had exceeded 90 days. The tribunal has allowed the O.A. on the very first day of hearing by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 7 SCC 291. Consequently, the continued suspension of the respondent beyond the initial period of 90 days, vide orders dated 27.09.2016 and 07.04.2017 was quashed. The respondent was directed to be reinstated within one week. The Tribunal also directed that the respondent shall be entitled to full salary for the period w.e.f. 10.10.2016. With regard to the earlier period, the determination of the manner of treatment of the suspension period of 90 days was left to be undertaken under FR 54B.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent while working as a Specialist ENT and Medical Officer-in-charge of Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital, GNCTD was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.07.2016 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. His suspension was extended by 180 days vide order dated 27.09.2016 with effect from 10.10.2016 to 07.04.2017 pursuant to the recommendations of the review committee. The charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 01.03.2017. Vide yet another order dated 07.04.2017, the suspension was further extended on the recommendation of the review committee for a period of 180 days with effect from 08.04.2017.

4. While the matter stood thus, the respondent preferred the O.A. on or about 12.05.2017. The case of the respondent/ applicant was that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), since the charge sheet had not been issued within 90 days of the initial suspension, the continued suspension of the respondent became illegal, and could not have been continued. The respondent also sought to place reliance on the O.M. dated 23.08.2016 issued by the DoPT as a consequence of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). The relevant part of the said O.M. reads as follows:

“OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – instructions regarding timely issue of Charge-sheet – regarding.

The undersigned is directed to refer to DoP&T’s O.M. No.11012/17/2013-Estt.A-III dated 3rd July, 2015 on the above mentioned subject and to say that in a recent case, Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs Union of India Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015 dated 16/02/2015, the Apex Court has directed as follows:

“14 We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prep