Point of Law: Service Law - Misconduct – Suspension order confirmed – A suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period Memorandum of Charges/ Charge-sheet is not served on delinquent officer/employee - No case is made out for interference with impugned order of suspension.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.07.2020, by which he was put under suspension, which was extended from time to time; further praying for reinstating him in service with all benefits including arrear pay and continuity in service from 29.01.2020; further praying for setting aside the memorandum of charges dated 31.08.2020 in so far as it relates to the petitioner; and the petitioner has also made a prayer for restraining the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case projected in this writ petition is that he is working as a Constable (General Duty) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF for short) since the year 2004. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted at 178 Bn., CRPF, presently located at Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner had applied for earned leave to visit his home, which was duly sanctioned by the competent authority with effect on and from 18.12.2019 to 31.01.2020. Bereft of details, it would be sufficient to mention herein that during this leave period, an FIR was lodged in Dharamtul P.S., registered as Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 10/2020 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC., wherein it was alleged that a sum of Rs.12.00 lakh was looted from the first informant at about 22.01.2020 at about 7.30 pm. by four persons wearing CRPF uniform. The petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2020 and he was released on bail by order dated 15.02.2020. By extensively relying on the bail order dated 15.02.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while granting bail, the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon had examined the case dairy and that the said learned Court had recorded a finding to the effect that the informant was arrested in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 11/2020 and it was found that the said first informant had lodged a false case alleging snatching of Rs.12.00 lakh, and that the investigation by the police had revealed that at the relevant time, the arrested informant had Rs.5,50,000/-with him out of which he had kept a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- with his father in law, which was recovered and the balance money was kept under the mat on his own car and accordingly charge-sheet bearing no. 10/2020 was submitted by I.O. in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 11/2020 under Sections 120-B, 419, 420/384 IPC. Accordingly, it is submitted that an out and out false case criminal case of dacoity came to be lodged and registered against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that by an order dated 29.01.2020, the petitioner was put under suspension by the respondent no. 3 under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 1965 Rules). It is submitted that the suspension order, it was not indicated that the petitioner had to report back to his battalion and the head-quarter of the petitioner during the period of suspension was also not stipulated. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 had served to the petitioner an order dated 30.04.2020, thereby cancelling the order dated 29.01.2020. Later on, by an order dated 10.07.2020, the respondent no. 3 had placed the petitioner under suspension under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules pending preliminary enquiry. It is submitted that though it was mentioned in the said order dated 10.07.2020 that the petitioner was transferred to Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, but till filing of the writ petition, the transfer order was not served on the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was served with a Memorandum dated 31.08.2020, containing three Article of Charges together with statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of wi