Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 1460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
UJJAL BHUYAN, PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN, JJ.
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Aloke Kumar Ghosal and Anr. - Respondents
WA No. 262 of 2017
Decided on : 16-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R.P. Kakoti, Mr. A.K. Dutta, Mr. H. Das and Mr. S. Sutradhar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Gogoi and Mr. D. Saikia, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 506 - Criminal Case - Criminal Charge - He was arrested in connection with All Women Police Station Case registered Following his arrest and continued detention for a period exceeding hours respondent No - 1 was placed under suspension vide order - It may be mentioned that a show-cause notice under rule of Central Civil Services read was issued to respondent No - 1 by Director of IIT which was served - Subsequently vide letter Director of IIT withdrew said show-cause notice for technical reasons - That apart suspension not being a punishment a delinquent facing serious criminal charge cannot seek as a matter of right his reinstatement notwithstanding efflux of time in meanwhile - In support of his submissions learned senior counsel has placed reliance on following decisions – Held, There can be no dispute to said proposition of law - It all depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Just as pendency of a criminal case for years would be no ground for revocation of suspension conversely, pendency of a criminal case also would be no ground to denude authority of its discretion to review continuance or otherwise of a suspension - In case of Supreme Court had examined contours of deemed suspension and held that since it creates a legal fiction issuance of an order of suspension may not be necessary as Government servant suffering detention beyond hours would stand suspended by operation of legal fiction - During period of trial he was under suspension which was continued even during appellate stage when State filed appeal against acquittal - High Court had initiated departmental proceeding whereafter it sought to further continue with suspension order - It was at that stage that Supreme Court intervened and held that continuance of such suspension would not be just and proper in facts and circumstances of case - Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Heard Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 2229/2015 filed by respondent No. 1 by quashing the suspension order of respondent No. 1 dated 17.12.2014 and directing his reinstatement in service.
3. Be it stated that respondent No. 1 is a Professor of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati. He was arrested on 16.12.2014 in connection with All Women Police Station Case No. 130/2014 registered under section 376(2)(b)/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his arrest and continued detention for a period exceeding 48 hours, respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.12.2014.
4. Respondent No. 1 was released on bail on 16.3.2015. Following his release on bail, respondent No. 1 submitted a representation dated 19.3.2015 before the Director, IIT, Guwahati requesting revocation of his suspension order and for release of his subsistence allowance.
5. Suspension of respondent No. 1 was reviewed by the Review Committee on 1.4.2015, wherein it was decided to continue with the suspension. Respondent No. 1 was accordingly informed on 7.4.2015.
6. It may be mentioned that a show-cause notice under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 read with article 311 of the Constitution of India was issued to respondent No. 1 by the Director of IIT, Guwahati which was served on 15.6.2015. Subsequently, vide letter dated 5.8.2016, Director of IIT, Guwahati withdrew the said show-cause notice for technical reasons.
7. Review Committee in its subsequent meeting held on 19.10.2015 decided to continue with the suspension order.
8. Aggrieved with the refusal of the IIT, Guwahati, to revoke the suspension order and assailing the legality and validity of the same, respondent No. 1 preferred the related WP(C) No. 2229/2015.
9. The writ petition was contested by IIT, Guwahati by filing counter affidavit which was replied to by respondent No. 1 by filing rejoinder.
10. After hearing the matter, learned Single Judge passed the judgment and order dated 28.7.2017 by holding that the order of suspension dated 17.12.2014 had lapsed and had become invalid when review was undertaken on 19.10.2015 and directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in service.
11. Hence, this appeal by IIT, Guwahati and by the Dean of Faculty Affairs.
12. Mr. Kakoti, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that accusation against respondent No. 1 is very serious. He is being accused of committing the heinous offence of rape on an employee of IIT, Guwahati. The incident itself had created a lot of resentment in the campus and if the respondent No. 1 is allowed to resume his work of teaching it may have an adverse impact in the campus. Assailing the finding of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Kakoti, learned senior counsel, has taken us to the provisions of rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘1965 Rules’). He submits that learned Single Judge had gone by the provisions of sub-rule (7) of rule 10 without examining the effect of the proviso thereto. His submission is that as per the proviso, in case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), once an order of suspension is extended by the first review within ninety days of suspension, further review is no longer required. Finding of the learned Single Judge that the second review was carried out after the expiry of the period of 90 days of the first review which invalidated the order of suspension would not be a correct appreciation of the legal position. That apart, suspension not being a punishment, a delinquent facing serious crimin
