IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH), (ITANAGAR BENCH)
A.M. BUJOR BARUA, J.
Biman Phukan, S/o. Lt. R.K Phukan – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of AP, Through the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar and 2 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.153 Of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 468, 420, 471, 120 (B) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13 – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 10 –Disciplinary Authority – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Learned counsel for petitioner heard learned Government Advocate for respondent Chief Secretary to Government of Arunachal Pradesh learned Standing Counsel Land Management Department for respondent – Held, Order of extension of suspension of petitioner was not in accordance with law – Court further provide that petitioner shall now be subjected to all provisions of law including discretion of authorities to place petitioner in any given post as per requirement of circumstance of Departmental Authorities keeping in view that petitioner is subjected to a Criminal Proceeding under law – Writ petition stands closed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
2. The petitioner is an Additional Chief Estimator in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex. An F.I.R dated 31.01.2020, was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Itanagar, inter-alia, alleging that some officials of the Land Management Branch of the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar, Capital Complex had issued certain overlapping Land Possession Certificates resulting in the SIC(VIG) Police Station, Itanagar Case No.20/2020, under Sections 468/420/471/120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, being registered. The petitioner was arrested on 23.06.2021, in connection with the aforesaid SIC(VIG) Police Station, Itanagar Case No.20/2020.
3. As the petitioner was under detention for a period exceeding 48 hours, he was placed under suspension as per the Office Memo No. LM/ESTT-256/S&DP/2021, dated 25.06.2021. Later on as per the order 23.08.2021, of the learned Special Judge (PCA), Yupia, the petitioner was released on bail. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per the provision of Rule 10 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [in short CCS (CCA) Rules]. After being released from detention, the respondent authority through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had passed the order dated 03.03.2022, the relevant portion of which is extracted as below:-
AND WHEREAS, the matter pertaining to his suspension was discussed and deliberated in the meeting of Suspension Review Committee headed by Secretary (Land Management) which was held on 24.02.2022.
AND WHEREAS, the Committee noted that there were very serious allegations of his involvement in the issuance of Land Possession Certificate of same plot to different individuals in the Capital Region in collusion with some private individuals with malafide intention. A case vide SIC(VIG) PS Case No.20/2020 U/S 120(B)468/471/420 IPC R/W Sec.13(2) of PC Act, has been registered against him based on enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and it is intimated that during the course of investigation by SIC(VIG) PS Itanagar, it has been found that a total of 799 LPCs (359 in the year 2016 and 420 in the year 2019) were issued to various individuals and parties in the Itanagar Capital Region with vested interest by the said official in collusion with some private individuals which are being analyzed and investigation has been going on. Based on the information placed before the Suspension Review Committee, the Committee noted that the said official has indulged in grave misconduct, have entered into criminal conspiracy with other private persons and Government officials and have acted in a manner which is totally unbecoming of Government Servant.
AND WHEREAS, the Competent Authority after due examination of all the facts and circumstances of the case and documents placed on record has accepted the aforementioned recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, in exercise of powers conferred by the Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, hereby extends the Suspension of Shri Biman Phukan, Addl. Chief Estimator, Officer of DC, ICR, Itanag
The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of periodic review before extending the suspension period and the timely service of charge memo as per the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965.
Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.
Suspension under CCS(CCA) Rules lapses if not reviewed before 90 days expiry; subsequent extensions cannot revive invalid order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and court judgments, and failure to do so renders the sus....
The court upheld the legitimacy of the applicant's suspension extension under CCS (CCA) Rules due to ongoing criminal proceedings concerning moral turpitude, justifying the action despite the duratio....
Deemed suspension lapses automatically after 90 days if not reviewed and extended before expiry, when employee released from detention prior thereto; proviso to Rule 10(7) inapplicable. Subsequent ex....
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so renders them invalid, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
The suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, and the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days to remain valid; failure to do so renders them invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.