The judgment in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary case does not provide an absolute rule for the extension of suspension by the competent authority.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM Appl. 32843/2023

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8664/2023, CM APPLs. 32841/2023 & 32842/2023

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated March 01, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 2518/2022, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the same on merits.

2. The challenge in the O.A. was to an order dated August 18, 2022 whereby the competent authority/respondents have extended the suspension of the petitioner beyond the initial period of 90 days.

3. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is a Direct Recruit Officer of Indian Custom and Central Excise Services and was posted as Deputy Commissioner in the Office of Central Goods and Services Tax, Gurgaon.

4. He was placed under suspension vide order dated May 22, 2022 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10(i)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. The petitioner was suspended based on a report by the Chief Commissioner, CGST vide its letter dated May 21, 2022 wherein, it was alleged that the petitioner has committed irregularities while processing the refunds of nearly Rs.30 crore.

5. The initial period of suspension of 90 days expired on August 19, 2022. The Suspension Review Committee after considering the case of suspension of the petitioner on August 18, 2022 and in view of the gravity and magnitude of the case and allegations of irregularities, recommended that the petitioner shall continue under suspension for a further period of 180 days. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee and accordingly extended the suspension of the petitioner from August 28, 2022 till February 15, 2023 with no change in subsistence allowance.

6. The case set up by the petitioner before the Tribunal was primarily that (i) the competent authority could not extend the period of suspension unless a charge sheet has been issued within a period of 90 days in case of disciplinary proceedings (ii) even if a charge sheet has been issued to the suspended official, the suspended period cannot be further extended beyond three months/90 days (iii) the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India, 215(7) SCC 291, has unequivocally taken away the power of the Competent Authority to extend the suspension period beyond three months.

7. The Tribunal while rejecting the O.A. has considered the above submissions of the petitioner and has in paragraphs 16 and 17, stated as under:

"16. I have gone through the records of the case thoroughly and heard the arguments carefully. I am of the considered view that the judgment in the Apex court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) case has not laid absolute law regarding continuance and discontinuance of the powers of extending suspension by the competent authority under Rules 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. I agree with the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the law, pronounced in Ajay Humar Choudhary's (supra) case is not part of the ratio deci-dendi rather they are obiter dictum and are not authoritative. The analysis of the Madras High Court in P. Kannan vs. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation in WP (C)No. 2165/2015 is that the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case has not laid down absolute proposition of law on suspension. The Suspension Review Committee has recorded the reasons for extending the suspension period beyond 90 days. The gravity of the disciplinary case and magnitude of the irregularities involved weigh heavily against the applicant. It 7was necessary to continue his suspension to demonstrate the policy of the government to deal with strictly with the officers involved in public scandals, particularly in corruption. The continuation of the suspension is also necessary to ensure that an officer is not in a position to tamper with the documents