Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Dipak Das S/o Late Sarat Das – Petitioner
Versus
The Indira Gandhi National Open University and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 3998 of 2023
Decided On : 15-12-2023
Suspension - Service Rules - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The court held that the suspension order issued by the NHAI and IGNOU and subsequent review beyond the prescribed period of 90 days were invalid, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in his service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Section Officer at IGNOU, was offered appointment as Accounts Officer on deputation basis at NHAI. He was arrested and put under suspension by NHAI and IGNOU. The petitioner sought reinstatement, which was not considered by the Departmental Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension orders and subsequent review beyond the prescribed period of 90 days were invalid, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in his service.
Issues: Validity of suspension orders, failure to review within the prescribed period, and reinstatement of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the judgments in Union of India and Others vs. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222 to hold that the suspension orders and subsequent review beyond the prescribed period of 90 days were invalid.
Final Decision: The court directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in his service forthwith upon receipt of the certified copy of the court's order.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
2. The case projected by the Petitioner in a nutshell is that he was appointed as Section Officer at Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter referred to as IGNOU) vide order dated 15.03.2012. While serving at IGNOU, petitioner was offered appointment as Accounts Officer on deputation basis at National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as NHAI) vide order dated 02.06.2017. During his period of deputation at NHAI, an FIR No. RC 216 2022 A0007 dated 12.06.2022 was lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation, inter alia alleging that he has indulged himself in corrupt and illegal activities by demanding and accepting bribe for passing bills and release of Bank Guarantee in respect of certain contractual works. He was arrested on 13.06.2022 in connection with above mentioned FIR and he was sent to judicial custody by the learned Court below. Since he was put behind custody beyond 48 hours, the Member (Admin) & Disciplinary Authority, NHAI put him under suspension vide order dated 20.06.2022 with effect from the date of arrest, in exercise of power under Rule 10 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department (IGNOU) vide order dated 17.08.2022 issued by GM (HR/Admin) IIC of NHAI. Therefore, another suspension order was issued by the IGNOU under order dated 21.08.2022.
3. The Petitioner was subsequently released on bail by order dated 14.09.2022 passed in Misc. (CBI) Case No. 19/22 arising out of Special Case No. 05/22 by the Learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam. It is the further case of the Petitioner that after release from the jail on 14.09.2022, he submitted representation on 25.09.2022 for his reinstatement into the service which was not considered by the Departmental Authority. It has further been stated that the Departmental Authority neither has initiated a Departmental Proceeding (DP) by framing charge against the Petitioner nor he has been re-instated into the service, which according to the Petitioner is against the settled propositions of law.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J. Patowary has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary vs. Union of India and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 291 and Union of India and Others vs. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner still remained under suspension and such suspension has not been reviewed by the competent authority within the prescribed period of 90 days.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent employer Mr. P.P. Dutta, submits that the Reviewing Authority in it’s meeting held on 30.11.2023 decided to extend the order of suspension for another period of 180 days w.e.f. 11.09.2022 to 09.03.2023 and extension of further period of 180 days w.e.f. 10.03.2023 to 05.09.2023 and therefore, the suspension order shall not be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review, inasmuch as a serious offence was committed by the petitioner.
7. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the materials available on record.
8. From the aforesaid facts pleaded by the parties, it is clear that the petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2022 and he was put under suspension on 20.06.2022 by the NHAI and on 21.08.2022 by the IGNOU and the petitioner was released on bail on 14.09.2022. The petitioner submitted his representation before the employer intimating the fact of his release on bail and requested for his reinstatement. When nothing was done by
Invalidity of suspension orders and subsequent review beyond the prescribed period of 90 days.
A suspension order becomes invalid if not reviewed within 90 days as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
The court emphasized the importance of conducting a timely and fair Departmental enquiry as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1965, and the c....
Departmental Authority neither has initiated a Departmental Proceeding (DP) by framing charge against Petitioner nor he has been re-instated into service, which according to Petitioner is against set....
Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
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
