Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 1637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Sudipto Sarkar - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 8161 of 2018
Decided On : 18-12-2018
For the Appellant : B. Bhuyan, Adv.
For the Respondents: S.C. Keyal, ASGI
Headnote:
CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 – Rule 10(1) – Issue on Suspension Order –Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for continuation of suspension, review of the suspension order within 90 (ninety) days of the date of the effect of the suspension order is a mandatory requirement which cannot be glossed over by the authorities failing which, any such suspension order shall be rendered invalid beyond 90 days –According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the suspension order is effective from 30.07.2018, a review for continuing the said suspension order ought to have been made before expiry of the 90 (ninety )– However, the review of suspension order was held which is beyond on the statutory period of 90 days, that too, after filing of the writ petition, and hence, the aforesaid review order cannot validate the continuation of the suspension order beyond 90 days –Held, This Court is of the view that if the suspension order of the petitioner could not be reviewed as claimed by the petitioner because of lack of quorum, it was incumbent on them to review the same at the earliest when it was rescheduled –However, this Court finds that though Executive Council was convened no such decision was taken to review the suspension of the petitioner, but was taken only on 04.12.2018 –For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that under the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the review of the suspension and the resolution to continue the suspension by the resolution cannot be held to be valid in terms of the sub-Rule 7 Rules – In the result, the continuation of suspension of the petitioner beyond 90 days is held to be illegal and is, accordingly, set aside – Consequently, the writ petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated in the service as Associate Professor –Petition disposed of
ORDER :
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
1. Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI appearing for the Union respondents.
2. Considering the nature of the case, the matter has been taken up and proposed to be disposed of at this stage. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI, on receiving necessary instructions in this regard has made his submission before this Court.
3. Brief facts of the case as may be relevant are stated hereinbelow.
4. The petitioner is presently serving as an Assistant Professor in the Assam University having been appointed in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, after having served in the aforesaid capacity, he has been made the Head of the Department in the year 2016. However, unfortunately, because of certain false complaint filed against him about certain sexual harassment, the matter was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), Assam University, Silchar and thereafter, by order dated 27.07.2018, the petitioner was relieved from the charge of Head of Department and he has been also placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.07.2018 on the basis an interim finding by the ICC. The aforesaid order of suspension reads as follows:
"Order
Whereas complaints under Rule 3C of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 against Dr. Sudipto Sarkar, Associate Professor, Deptt. Of Agricultural Engineer, Assam University, Silchar is pending; and whereby Internal Complaints Committee has submitted its interim report where a prima facie case has been established against Dr. Sudipto Sarkar, the Competent Authority of the University; therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965, hereby places said Dr. Sudipto Sarkar under suspension with immediate effect.
It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, Dr. Sudipto Sarkar shall not leave the headquarter without obtaining the prior permission of the Competent Authority."
5. Thus, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide above mentioned order dated 30.07.2018. It is seen that the petitioner was placed under suspension after an interim report was submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee stating that a prima-facie case has been established against the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has challenged the continuation of the aforesaid suspension order as well as the earlier order dated 27.07.2018. By the earlier order the petitioner has been relieved from the responsibility of the Head of the Department. The petitioner however submits that he is not pressing to challenge to this and he may be permitted to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
7. This Court will first deal with the issue raised by the petitioner about the continuation of the aforesaid suspension order issued on 30.07.2018, which according to the petitioner, is not permissible as no review was undertaken by the competent authority for continuation of the said suspension order as contemplated under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the "Rules". As regards the applicability of the aforesaid Rule, there is no dispute about it. Rule 10(6) of the CCA-CCA Rule 1965 reads as follows:
"10(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension [before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension] on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period of exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time."
8. The aforesaid Rule 10(6) provides that the order of suspension shall be reviewed by the authority, which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension order before the
