Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Lomkam Rekhung – Appellant
Versus
The State of AP and 3 Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 251 of 2024
Decided on : 03-10-2024
(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 10(6) and (7) - Suspension of government employee - Petitioner placed under suspension without review after 90 days, violating the CCS (CCA) Rules - Court emphasized the necessity of reviewing suspension orders within stipulated time frames and referenced Supreme Court precedent regarding suspension duration. (Paras 8, 15, 16, 18)
(B) Right to speedy trial - Court highlighted the importance of personal freedom and human dignity, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling that suspension should not exceed three months without a charge-sheet. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk, was suspended following his arrest related to a corruption case involving irregular appointments in the Education Department. He challenged the suspension order for lack of timely review.
Findings of Court:
The court found the suspension order unsustainable due to failure to review within 90 days as mandated by the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the suspension order and the requirement for timely review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the suspension order was invalid due to non-compliance with review requirements and emphasized the need for adherence to procedural safeguards.
Result: The suspension order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated.
JUDGMENT :
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 a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Office of the Deputy Director of School Education (DDSE), 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. Adma Rekhung was shown to have been appointed as Multi-Tasking Staff 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 his statement recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner was summoned by the SIC on 09.02.2024 and on appearance, he 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 his joining report to the DDSE, Changlang District. However, the petitioner was not allowed to perform his 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 the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 has been passed in clear violation of Rule 10(6)&(7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days as per CCS (CCA) Rules; 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 under CCS (CCA) Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; 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 invalid.
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 invalidates the order.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days; indefinite suspension without charges violates CCS (CCA) Rules and principles of personal freedom.
Suspension orders must be reviewed within 90 days to remain valid; failure to do so renders them unsustainable.
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
