Point of Law : Attracting the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the law within the territory of India.

JUDGMENT :

N.Tagia, J.

This intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the order, dated 16.05.2023, passed by the learned single Judge in WP(c)224(AP)2023, whereby, the writ petition has been dismissed.

2. The appellant as writ petitioner, had filed WP(c)224(AP)2023, challenging the order, dated 12.10.2022, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. PERS-12/17/2022/386; whereby, the petitioner who is an APSC (Selection Grade) Officer and working as Joint Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission(APPSC), Itanagar, has been placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-rule(1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, with immediate effect on contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner in connection with paper leakage case of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Assistant Engineer(Civil) Examination, 2022.

Also put to challenge is the order, dated 10.01.2023, issued on 11.01.2023, by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. PERS-18012/2/2021/737, whereby, the petitioner’s suspension was extended for a further period of 90 ninety days w.e.f. 11.01.2023 to 10.04.2023, in terms of Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, as well as the order, dated 06.04.2023, issued on 10.04.2023, by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. PERS-18012/2/2021/1145, whereby, the petitioner’s suspension period was further extended for a period of 90 days w.e.f. 11.04.2023 to 09.07.2023, in terms of Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.

3. Assailing the aforesaid suspension order and the subsequent extensions made by the State Government; the appellant/petitioner had contended that since no memorandum of charges have been served upon him before the expiry of 90 days from the date, he was initially placed under suspension; he could not have been placed under suspension by the subsequent orders of extension issued beyond 90 days.

In support of his contention; the appellant/petitioner had relied on an Office Memorandum, dated 23.08.2016, issued by the Director(E), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, Establishment A-III, vide No. F.NO. 11012/04/2016-Estt.(A); as well as on a decision rendered by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Mirpe Tato v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & ors. , reported in 2021(3) GLT 189.

The contention of the appellant/petitioner did not find favour with the learned single Judge and the aforesaid writ petition being WP(c)224(AP)2023 was dismissed at the stage of motion hearing itself by holding that as the order of review of suspension and the decision to extend the same, was taken prior to the expiry of 90 days from the date of the suspension order; the contention raised by the petitioner that in the event, memorandum of charges is not served upon him within a period 90 days, the period of suspension cannot be extended beyond a period of 90 days; cannot be accepted and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

4. Since the writ petition was dismissed inlimini, the respondents were directed to file an affidavit in this writ appeal vide order, dated 05.06.2023. Accordingly, the Respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed the affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, it has been contended that the extension of the suspension periods of the appellant/petitioner was made by the State Government, on recommendation of the Review Committee before the expiry of 90 days from the date, the last suspension order was issued and therefore, the extension of the suspension periods of the appellant/petitioner was made in accordance with the Rules.

In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Respondent No. 1