Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
E. S. Ranganatha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 4681 of 2023 & CM APPL. 18061 of 2023
Decided On : 13-04-2023
Suspension - Review of Suspension Order - GAIL Employees CDA Rule 1986 - [SUSPENSION] - [EMPLOYMENT] - [GAIL Employees CDA Rule 1986, Rule 25(5)] - The court discussed the review of suspension orders and the requirement of issuing a charge sheet within three months of the suspension order. It highlighted the need to assess the continuation of suspension based on the nature of allegations, materials, and the position held by the concerned employee. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition with a limited direction to consider the petitioner's representation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the suspension order and reinstatement in service, claiming that the suspension was not reviewed as required by law and no charge sheet was issued within three months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension was reviewed on multiple occasions as per the GAIL Employees CDA Rule 1986 and that the requirement of issuing a charge sheet within three months does not mandatorily revoke the suspension. It concluded that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition.
Issues: Review of suspension order, requirement of issuing a charge sheet within three months, and the petitioner's representation to the Competent Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The need for continuation of suspension must be assessed based on the nature of allegations, materials, and the position held by the concerned employee. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition with a limited direction to consider the petitioner's representation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with a limited direction to the Competent Authority to consider the petitioner's representation within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order of issuing any appropriate writ, order/direction to the respondents for quashing the impugned order dated 10.05.2022, Order dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-1 & P-2) and Order dt. 5.4.2023 (Annexure P-3) declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service immediately with all consequential benefits.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may further graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service w.e.f. 08.08.2022 i.e. from the date of completion of 90 days w.e.f 10.05.2022 for all purposes and with all consequential benefits including the difference of pay and allowances."
2. As understood from a plain reading of the averments and the grounds in the writ petition as well as from the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner, the limited grievance of the Petitioner is that the suspension order was issued way back on 18.01.2022 and till date, neither the same has been reviewed, as required by law and nor has any charge sheet been issued within three months from the date of the suspension order and therefore, the action of Respondents No.2 and 3 in not revoking the suspension is bad in law.
3. Issue notice.
4. Ms. Abha Malhotra, learned Senior CGSC accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.
5. Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
6. Mr. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on advance copy of the writ petition argues that there is no hard and fast rule or law which mandates that in every case, charge sheet must be issued within three months of the date of the suspension order albeit no doubt, this is a desirable course of action. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9100, more particularly, paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 thereof. It is argued that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case looking to the nature and substance of the allegations, the materials on which the allegations are founded and the complexity of the issues involved as to whether the suspension is to be reviewed or revoked.
7. It is further submitted by Mr. Prabhakar that the Petitioner is factually wrong in submitting that suspension has not been reviewed. Record shows that from time to time, the matter relating to suspension of the Petitioner was deliberated upon and reviewed, which is evident from the order dated 05.04.2023, which the Petitioner has himself annexed as `Annexure P-3' to the writ petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined the aforesaid contentions.
9. It is factually correct that Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.01.2022 on his arrest by CBI on 16.01.2022 while he was working as Director (Marketing) with Respondents No.2 and 3. Petitioner is, however, not correct in stating that the suspension order has not been reviewed as per the laid down procedure or law. Perusal of order dated 05.04.2023, which is annexed as `Annexure P-3' to the writ petition, reflects that suspension of the Petitioner was reviewed on 10.05.2022, 05.08.2022 and lastly on 05.04.2023. Relevant part of the order is as under:
"2. Now, therefore, atter reviewing the circumstances of the case, and also in view of the fact that disciplinary proceedings is contemplated against Shri Ranganathan, the Competent Authority, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 25(5) of GAIL Employees CDA Rule 1986 has decided to continue the suspension of Shri ES Ranganathan, EDGAIL until further orders.
3. It is further ordered that till this order remains in force, the headquarters of Shri E.S. Ranganathan
The need for continuation of suspension must be assessed based on the nature of allegations, materials, and the position held by the concerned employee.
Suspension orders in disciplinary proceedings must be reviewed within 90 days; otherwise, they become invalid, ensuring the right to a fair trial and administrative efficiency.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and court judgments, and failure to do so renders the sus....
The main legal point established is that a suspension order should not exceed beyond three months without a reasoned order for extension, as mandated by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
Suspension orders must not exceed three months without a charge-sheet; otherwise, they are unsustainable in law.
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
