Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Raman Biswas S/o Late Phoni Biswas – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 231 of 2023
Decided On : 20-11-2023
Suspension - Extension of Suspension Period - CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 - IPC - POCSO Act - [Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965, IPC, POCSO Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk, was arrested on charges of attempting to rape and molest a minor. He was placed under deemed suspension, and the suspension period was extended without periodic review as required by the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension orders were extended without periodic review, contrary to the provisions of Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965. The court also noted that no charge memo had been served to the petitioner within the stipulated time.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the extension of the suspension period without periodic review and the failure to serve a charge memo within the prescribed time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension orders must be periodically reviewed before extension and that the failure to serve a charge memo within the stipulated time rendered the continuation of suspension contrary to the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent authority was directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service with consequential benefits.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate representing the State respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned Order, Memo No. DUD/Estt-727/2020-21/3294-301 dated 21.08.2020 (signed and issued on 23.03.2020) issued by Secretary, Department of Urban and Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by which the suspension period of the petitioner has been extended for a further period of 180 days w.e.f. 31.05.2020. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority in putting him under suspension for an indefinite period by extending the suspension period beyond ninety (90) days without there being any periodic review as required under the Rules.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner, who is working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the office of the Chief Engineer, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, was arrested on 02.03.2020 pursuant to the FIR being Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 22/2020, under Sections 376/511/448 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, on the report lodged by one Shri Kimar Diyum on 01.03.2020, alleging that the petitioner has attempted to rape and molest his minor daughter on 27.02.2020.
4. Following the arrest and detention of the petitioner for a period exceeding 48 hours, the respondent authority vide Order, Memo. No. DUD/Estt-409/2007-08(Part)/11,346-53 dated 23.03.2020, placed the petitioner under deemed suspension with effect from the date of his detention in terms of sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1965 [In short CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965] until further orders.
5. The police filed charge-sheet on 03.07.2020 and the POCSO Case No. 06/2020 is pending trial at the stage of prosecution evidence before the Special Judge, POCSO, Yupia.
6. The respondent authority has issued the impugned Order dated 03.09.2020 by which the suspension period of the petitioner has been extended for a further period of hundred and eighty (180) days with effect from 31.05.2020. The suspension Order dated 23.03.2020 was required to be reviewed by constituting a review committee before the expiry of ninety (90) days, which was on 31.05.2020.
7. The petitioner had been placed under deemed suspension in terms of Rule 10 (2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965. Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 shall be reviewed by the Review Committee on the question as to whether the suspension is required to be extended any further or not, before the expiry of ninety (90) days from the effective date of suspension and if it is required it shouldn’t be for a period exceeding hundred and eighty (180) days at a time. Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Order 10(1) or (2) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 shall not be valid after a period of ninety (90) days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety (90) days.
8. The respondent authority, thereafter, extended the suspension period of the petitioner vide Orders, dated 10.12.2020, 13.01.2021, 29.06.2021, 06.11.2021, 18.01.2022, 15.07.2022 and finally vide order dated 13.12.2022 the suspension period of the petitioner has been extended for a further period of hundred and eighty (180) days w.e.f. 17.12.2022 to 14.06.2023.
9. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the initial extension of the suspension period vide impugned Order dated 03.09.2020 is per se illegal and without authority, all subsequent orders are also illegal and without any authority. He further submits that the impugned extension Order dated 03.09.2020 and the subsequent orders thereby extending the period of suspension of the petitioner from
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.
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....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that prolonged suspension without initiating any departmental proceeding, extensions of suspension without recorded reasons, and exceeding the maxi....
The court established that prolonged suspension without initiation of departmental proceeding and without recording reasons for extension is impermissible. The court also clarified that the extension....
Prolonged suspension without initiation of departmental proceeding and extensions without valid reasons are not permissible. The total period of suspension is limited under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
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....
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
