Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
Smti Likkem Tangha, S/o. Khangpong Tangha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., represented by the Commissioner (Education) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 252 of 2024
Decided On : 03-10-2024
Suspension - Education Department - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - The court found that the suspension order was invalid due to lack of required review within 90 days, violating the CCS (CCA) Rules, leading to the quashing of the suspension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk-cum-Cashier, was suspended following her arrest related to a corruption case involving irregular appointments in the Education Department. The suspension order was issued without the required review after 90 days.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the suspension order was unsustainable as it violated the CCS (CCA) Rules, specifically the lack of a review within the mandated 90-day period, and the order to remain suspended during the trial was improper.
Issues: Whether the suspension order was valid given the failure to review it within 90 days as required by the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days to remain valid, and failure to do so renders the order invalid, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the trial.
Result: The suspension order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel, for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, for the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order No. EED-12015/3/2024/447, dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, by which, the petitioner has been placed under suspension w.e.f. 09.02.2024 (from the date of arrest) by providing that the order of suspension shall remain in force during the period of trial.
3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Department of Education, Changlang. Sometime in the year 2022, it surfaced that various appointment orders were issued by the then Director of Elementary Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in connivance of few officers/officials of the Education Department and had issued appointment orders to various persons in the District of Longding by showing that the candidates have been regularized by particular DPC which was, subsequently, found to have been not true, inasmuch as the said DPC never recommended the regularization/appointment of the candidates. Accordingly, investigations were carried out by the SIC (Vig.) leading to arrest of many officers/officials of the Department of Education.
4. Thereafter, on the hue and cry by the public, investigations were enlarged to other districts of the State including the Changlang District, whereby, a report was sought regarding the appointments made in the District of Changlang by not following the relevant Recruitment Rules. The report suggested that there were various appointments made in the District of Changlang dehors the Rules. Accordingly, on the approval of the competent authority, a case being SIC (Vig.) Case No. 03/2023 was registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/409 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 17.08.2023, on the ground that as many as 77 (seventy-seven) teachers and other staffs were appointed under the establishment of the Deputy Director of School Education (DDSE), Changlang District. It was revealed that name of the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Ms. Kenlik Tangha was shown to have been appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and the name of her brother, namely, Mr. Chingthok Haisa was shown to be appointed as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in the Department of Education, Changlang.
5. The petitioner was summoned to appear before the SIC (Vig.) on various dates and accordingly, the petitioner appeared on 2 (two) occasions and got her statement recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner was summoned by the SIC on 09.02.2024 and on appearance, she was taken into custody.
6. Consequent to the arrest of the petitioner, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter, referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965]. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that the petitioner has been in detention for a period exceeding 48 (forty-eight) hours. It is provided that the order of suspension to remain in force for the period during the trial.
7. The petitioner, on completion of 90 (ninety) days period of suspension and there being no review of the suspension order, has submitted her joining report to the DDSE, Changlang District. However, the petitioner was not allowed to perform her duty. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.06.2024 to the Director of Elementary Education for revocation of suspension order dated 19.02.2024 but same has not been considered. Resultantly, petitioner is under continuous suspension without there being any periodical review.
8. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that th
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days to remain valid; failure to do so invalidates the order.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so renders them invalid, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days to remain valid; failure to do so renders them invalid.
Suspension orders under CCS (CCA) Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so renders the suspension invalid.
Suspension orders under CCS (CCA) Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; indefinite suspension without charges violates personal freedom and the right to a speedy trial.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days as per CCS (CCA) Rules; failure to do so renders the suspension invalid.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days to remain valid; failure to do so renders them unsustainable.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days; indefinite suspension without charges violates CCS (CCA) Rules and principles of personal freedom.
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
