Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
S. Bikramaditya Meitei (Dr.) - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 53 of 2022 with WP(C) No. 947 of 2021
Decided On : 27-05-2022
Suspension - Disciplinary Proceedings - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 10(6) and (7)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the suspension order and memorandum of charges issued by the authorities of JNIMS. The petitioner argued that the suspension was a result of his involvement in agitations and was not extended within the prescribed 90-day period. The respondents claimed delay in review due to Covid-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court interpreted Rule 10(6) and (7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, emphasizing the requirement for review and extension of suspension within 90 days. The court acknowledged the delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic but ultimately dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the suspension and its extension did not warrant interference.
Issues: Validity of suspension extension, Delay in review of suspension order, Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on disciplinary proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension order must be reviewed and extended within 90 days as per Rule 10(6) and (7). The court considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay in review but ultimately upheld the suspension and its extension.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. In W.P.(C) No.947 of 2021, the petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash the impugned suspension order bearing No.01/776/Departmental Enquiry/JNIMS/21, dated 26.6.2021 along with the Memorandum dated 26.6.2021 issued by the Principal Secretary (H & FW), Government of Manipur.
2. In W.P. (C) No.53 of 2022, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (H & FW)/Chairman, Executive Committee JNIMS Society, by which the earlier suspension of the petitioner was extended for a further period of 180 days with effect from 24.8.2021 by the Review Committee in violation of the Rules.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that since his appointment to the post of Senior Resident in the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences Society (JNIMS) vide proceedings dated 20.11.2011 in the Department of Psychiatry, he was serving in the said capacity without any promotion. It is averred that since he has been functioning as the General Secretary of Teacher's Association JNIMS, he took part in various agitations pertaining to violation of fundamental rights of the members of the association and, therefore, he was targeted and singled out by the authorities of JNIMS and an order of suspension was passed on 26.6.2021. Along with the order of suspension, a memorandum of charges dated 26.6.2021 was issued, which are the subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No.947 of 2021.
4. It is further stated that despite an order dated 21.12.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No.947 of 2021 to the effect that 'the pendency of the writ petition shall not preclude the respondents from considering and disposing of the representation dated 29.11.2021' and the same being communicated to the official respondents by way of a legal notice dated 23.12.2021, the respondents did not consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2021. However, it is stated that the respondents vide order dated 21.12.2021, which was alleged to be communicated to the petitioner on 30.12.2021, extended the suspension period of the petitioner for a period of 180 days from 24.8.2021.
5. It is the contention of Ms. Pushpa, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings dated 21.12.2021 extending the period of suspension has been passed as an afterthought pursuant to the order dated 21.12.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No.947 of 2021, antedating the proceedings.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of suspension dated 26.6.2021 was not extended after review within a period of 90 days as prescribed under Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and, therefore, the same is not valid in the eye of law.
7. The last argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Government of Manipur imposed lockdown from 8.5.2021 to 18.7.2021 and thereafter it was lifted and, even according to the office memorandum dated 30.3.2020, the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, decided not to count the period of the lockdown for the purpose of adherence to the timeline for review of order of suspension before its expiry date, and thereby stipulated that after the lockdown is lifted, the task to be completed within 90 days, should be completed within 90 days after the lifting of lockdown. However, within 90 days, the order of suspension was not reviewed and, therefore, it is invalid.
8.In reply, Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Advocate General appearing for the second respondent submitted that the involvement of the petitioner in agitations launched by the Teacher's Association has nothing to do with the suspension order. He added that the departmental enquiry is under way and the Inquiring and Presenting Officers have been appointed and such information had also been communicated to the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the second responden
The extension of suspension orders without the recommendation of the Review Committee and failure to extend the suspension within the prescribed period rendered the suspension orders invalid.
Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.
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.
Suspension under CCS(CCA) Rules lapses if not reviewed before 90 days expiry; subsequent extensions cannot revive invalid order.
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....
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....
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....
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
