The court ruled that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 do not apply to Ministers, preserving the Chief Minister's discretion in making appointments despite criminal allegations.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to Respondent No.2/Lieutenant Governor of Delhi for initiating appropriate proceedings for suspension of Health Minister of Delhi Sh. Satyender Jain, who has been in custody since 30.05.2022.

2. It is stated that Sh. Satyender Jain, who has been in custody since 30.05.2022, has been enjoying all the perks and privileges of a Cabinet Minister, despite facing allegations of serious financial irregularities, and that this is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as a Government Servant, who is in custody for more than 48 hours, is to be put under deemed suspension as per the practice which is being followed relating to the Public/Government Servants in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965"). It is stated that Respondent No.3/Sh. Satyender Jain has also committed breach of oath and he cannot be permitted to hold the office as a Minister.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR in the month of August 2017 against the Health Minister of Delhi, Sh. Satyender Jain, on the charge of alleged possession of disproportionate assets. The Enforcement Directorate, thereafter, launched a probe into the allegation levelled against Sh. Satyender Jain based on an FIR registered by the CBI and arrested Sh. Satyender Jain on 30.05.2022 in an alleged money laundering case on the grounds of him partaking in hawala transactions in the year 2015-2016 with a Kolkata-based firm.

4. By way of the instant petition, the Petitioner has submitted that the elected representatives/Ministers fall under the definition of a Government servant and are they liable to be kept under deemed suspension in case their custody extends for more than 48 hours, akin to the process that applies to a "Government servant" defined under provision of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. It is submitted that continuance of Sh. Satyender Jain, despite him being under custody, violates Article 164 read with provisions of Schedule-III of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the Minister under custody cannot be permitted to access confidential information of the State departments and there is an urgent requirement to formulate strict guidelines pertaining to the resignation/suspension of the Minister in the event of arrest of a Minister. It is further submitted that the Minister in custody (for more than 48 hours) is not entitled to the perks and privileges, including the full salary.

5. With the consent of both the parties, this case is being taken up for final disposal.

6. Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the Minister is in custody since 31.05.2022 and this is a cause for his removal from the post of a Cabinet Minister. He states that allowing him to continue, with all perks and privileges, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He states that any "Government servant" being in custody for more than 48 hours faces suspension and the same analogy must apply to Mr. Satyender Jain also. Mr. Sudhi argues that as per Article 164 of the Constitution of India, the appointment of the Cabinet Ministers of the State is done on the advice tendered by the Chief Minister of the State to the Lt. Governor. He states that this "advice" is meant to be in consonance with the principles of constitutional morality and good governance, and that it is incumbent upon the Chief Minister to ensure that the Cabinet Ministers appointed are those who inspire confidence in the public at large.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos