IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and failure to do so may entitle the individual to seek revocation.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the suspension order dated 25.9.2012 issued by the second respondent.

[2] Heard Mr. N. Jotendra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam, learned Government Advocate.

[3] The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Barkandaz in Electrical Division No.1, PWD, Manipur, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 25.9.2012 of the second respondent under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in connection with FIR No.138(8)2012 registered under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. According to the petitioner, the said FIR was registered in connection with a complaint dated 27.8.2012 lodged by the then Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, PWD, Manipur for the alleged withdrawal of Rs.5,39,174/- fraudulently from the Account No.32178814953 of State Bank of India, Manipur University Branch by using forged office orders, certificates, bill vouchers and other fake documents in the name of one fictitious person namely Keisham Biren Singh, S.O., Grade-I as provisional gratuity in the month of March, 2012 in which the petitioner was also put as one of the accused along with seven others in the said FIR.

[4] Further case of the petitioner is that a cognizance was taken up and the case was registered before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2. The State, after investigation filed the charge-sheet before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and upon hearing on the charges, by the order dated 20.8.2019, the petitioner was discharged from the offences, which are charged against him. The said order of acquittal was also communicated to the Department by the petitioner through a representation dated 3.9.2019.

[5] According to the petitioner, the petitioner was receiving the subsistence allowance as admissible under the Rule till date with effect from 27.10.2015. Since the petitioner acquitted and is also on the verge of retirement from his service, he had made several representations to the concerned authorities praying for revocation of the suspension order dated 25.9.2012 issued by the second respondent. The suspension order is required to be reviewed within a period of 90 days. However, the respondent authorities failed to review the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

[6] No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents even after several adjournments were given.

[7] Assailing the impugned order of suspension, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after discharge/acquittal from the criminal case, the petitioner has made a representation by enclosing the copy of judgment of the acquittal requesting the authorities to revoke the suspension order dated 25.9.2012, followed with subsequent representations also. However, the same are not considered and disposed of till date for the best reason known to them.

[8] The learned senior counsel further submitted that in response to one of the representations preferred by the petitioner, the Under Secretary (Works), Government of Manipur forwarded a letter on 15.6.2020 to the second respondent to do the needful action for revocation of the suspension order. Despite the direction of the Under Secretary, the second respondent has not revoked the suspension order, which culminated the petitioner in sending another representation dated 10.2.2021 to the first respondent requesting for revocation of the suspension order dated 25.9.2012 as the suspension order is illegal and the petitioner is victim of circumstances by dragging his name in the FIR No.138(8)2012 for which he was suspended and as such since the suspension order was not yet reviewed, the same is required to be reviewed within a period of 90 days on the principle laid down by the