Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1150
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Santosh Mehra, J
Shri Kamlakar D. Kamble – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1061/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Shri D.A. Bhalerao, Ms. Vidya Kamble
For the Respondents: Shri N.K. Rajpurohit
Suspension of a government employee can be extended beyond three months in cases involving serious criminal allegations, provided due process is followed and justified reasons are given.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 120-B IPC r/w 7A - Suspension of employee - Applicant challenged suspension and extensions as violative of rules and Supreme Court judgments - Court found that suspension was justified based on serious allegations of corruption, and that extensions were made in accordance with prescribed procedures. (Paras 2.1, 3.12, 12.1)
(B) Natural Justice - Requirement for grounds of suspension - Court ruled that grounds for suspension were adequately provided and justified based on the investigation and evidence available. (Paras 12.1, 12.2)
(C) Judicial Review - Court emphasized minimal interference in suspension orders unless arbitrary or unjustified. (Paras 10, 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, an Assistant Regional Officer at CBFC, was suspended following a CBI FIR for corruption. He claimed the suspension was unjustified as no charge-sheet was filed within 90 days.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the suspension, stating it was in line with established legal principles and justified by the gravity of the allegations.
Issues: Whether the suspension and its extensions were lawful and justified under applicable rules and previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while the suspension order should ideally not exceed three months without a charge-sheet, exceptions apply in serious criminal cases, and the respondents followed due process in extending the suspension.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's suspension details and context. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents' justification for suspension. (Para 4) |
| 3. counsel's rebuttal to the respondents' claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's analysis and reasoning on suspension legality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
(ORAL) ORDER
Per : Shri Santosh Mehra, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this OA seeking for the following reliefs:
“8(a) The Original Application may kindly be allowed.
8(b) The order of suspension dated 15th December, 2023 and subsequent orders of extension of suspension vide dated 12th March, 2024 , 10th June, 2024, 03rd September, 2024 etc passed by the respondents may be quashed and set aside.
8(c) The Respondents may be directed to pass the order to reinstate the applicant and give all the consequential benefits extended to it.
8(d) The Respondents may be directed to sanction and disburse the arrears of entitlements on such sanction within a stipulated time.
8(e) That, any other relief to which the applicant is entitled in the interest of justice may kindly be granted.”
2. Facts in nutshell are as follows:
2.1 The applicant was working as Assistant Regional Officer at Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) at Mumbai. Based on the complaint given by a Tamil Film Actor Vishal, an FIR was registered by ACB/CBI on 04th October, 2023 under Sections 120-B IPC r/w 1, 7A of PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) and substantive offences thereof against private persons Mrs. Merlin Menaga, Mrs. Jeeja Ramdas, Shri Rajan M and against some unknown public servants of CBFC, Mumbai and investigation of the case was commenced.
2.2 Pursuant to the registration of the offence, the Respondents vide CBFC’s order No.C-13013/1/2023-Vig dated 15th December, 2024 placed the applicant under suspension. The suspension of the applicant has been regularly extended vide Orders dated 12th March, 2024, 10th June, 2024 and 04th September, 2024 as per the recommendations of the Review Committee, despite representation by the applicant. The applicant vide this OA has challenged his suspension and the subsequent extensions stating that they are against the extant DoPT OMs, CCS Rules and judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts of India. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that ACB/CBI on 04th October, 2023 vide RC No. RC0262023A0032 had registered an FIR under Sections 120-B IPC r/w 1, 7A of PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) against private persons Mrs. Merlin Menaga, Mrs. Jeeja Ramdas, Shri Rajan M and unknown public servants of CBFC, Mumbai. Neither the applicant was named in the FIR nor anything incriminating was found during the search carried out by the CBI in the office and residence of the applicant. Despite thorough interrogation done by the CBI of the applicant, he was neither arrested nor any charge-sheet has been filed against him till date by the CBI. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated that no trap was laid nor any money nor any other incriminating evidence was recovered either from the person of the applicant or his office or his residence.
3.1 Despite this, after a lapse of three months, without any justification, the applicant received the Order of Suspension dated 15th December, 2023. Subsequently, orders have been issued on 12th March, 2024, 10th June, 2024 and last on 04th September, 2024 extending the suspension of the applicant by 90 days every time by the CEO/CBFC. The applicant made representation vide email dated 24th June, 2024 requesting the respondents for his reinstatement in service and all consequential benefits but no response has been received by the applicant from the respondents. 3.2 In his representation to the respondents, the applicant had invited their attention to DoPT office Memorandum No.11012/07/2016-Estt (A) dated 23rd August, 2016 regarding timely disposal of charge-sheets and also the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India Through its
