SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9300

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Judicial Member, Mohan Pyare, Administrative Member
Shashank Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 330/0434 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Anoop Trivedi, Shri Vibhu Rai
For the Respondents: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma

Deemed suspension under CCS (CCA) Rules cannot exceed two years from bail release if no departmental charge-sheet issued; prolonged suspension without proceedings is invalid and punitive.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 10(2), (6), (7) as amended on 19.10.2022 - Deemed suspension due to arrest in corruption case - Applicant under suspension since 17.07.2021, released on bail on 17.09.2021 - No departmental charge-sheet issued even after over two years - Extension of suspension beyond two years from release on bail held invalid as per amended Rule 10(7)(c) - Prolonged suspension without departmental proceedings punitive in nature and unjustified - Suspension orders quashed, reinstatement directed with period beyond two years treated as duty - Respondents free to initiate inquiry proceedings. (Paras 14, 24, 25, 31, 32)

(B) Suspension - Review and limits - Periodic reviews mandatory; continuation beyond statutory limits without charge-sheet impermissible - Government may transfer employee to prevent influence on witnesses instead of indefinite suspension. (Paras 21, 28)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, a government officer, placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 17.07.2021 upon arrest in custody for over 48 hours in corruption case involving alleged illegal gratification. Bail granted on 15.09.2021, released on 17.09.2021. Suspension extended periodically by Review Committee up to 01.04.2024 despite no departmental charge-sheet issued. Criminal charge-sheet filed, trial pending. Representations for revocation rejected.

Findings of Court:
Impugned suspension order dated 09.08.2021 and all extensions quashed as legally infirm. Applicant to be reinstated within four weeks; excess period treated as duty with consequential benefits minus subsistence allowance already paid.

Issues: Validity of prolonged deemed suspension without departmental charge-sheet; compliance with amended Rule 10(7) limiting suspension to two years post-release on bail; justification for extensions despite absence of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) cannot exceed two years from release on bail or intimation thereof if no charge-sheet issued, per amended Rule 10(7)(c). Prolonged suspension prejudices right to speedy justice, casts stigma, and burdens exchequer without inquiry finality. Reinstatement ordered with liberty to initiate proceedings.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. facts of arrest, suspension, and extensions due to criminal case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. respondents justify suspension pending criminal trial. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. applicant's arguments against prolonged suspension under ccs rules. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. respondents defend extensions citing serious corruption charges. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. court observes prolonged suspension unjustified without departmental charges. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. rule 10(7) ccs limits deemed suspension to two years without charge-sheet. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
7. prolonged suspension punitive; reinstatement with safeguards possible. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. quash suspension beyond two years; reinstate applicant. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):

Since the pleadings between the parties have already been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is being decided finally at the Admission stage.

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:

I. "To allow this applicant and set aside the Suspension Order dated 09.08.2021 passed by Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, (CBIT and Customs).

II. To allow this applicant and set aside the extension of suspension order dated 28.03.2023 passed by Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, (CBIT and Customs).

III. To issue any other order or direction in favour of the applicant which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice.

IV. Award cost of the instant application to the applicant.”

3. The brief facts as apparent from the record is that the applicant is an Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Indirect Taxes), Officer of 2010 Batch. The applicant was posted as General Manager, Government Opium and Alkaloid Works (hereinafter referred as GOAW), Ghazipur, U.P. and he was handed over the additional charge of GOAW, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh with effect from 19.01.2021. After being handed over the charge of General Manager of the factory at Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh on 19.01.2021, the applicant has also continued its strict vigilance in the said factory premise as prior to the posting of applicant, the produce of the factories premises were being mishandled at the behest of certain persons involved in illegal uses of Opium and Alkaloids produced in the factory and also by drug mafia involved in illegal sale of narcotics. Thereafter, the Officer of Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur lodged a First Information Report on 17.07.2021, registered as FIR NO.264/2021 on the allegation that on the said date when the applicant was returning from the visit of the said factory premise of Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh in a duly permitted official vehicle with an official driver, they intercepted him and in the alleged interception after going through the car, they allegedly found a sum of Rs.16,32,401/- which according to them was an illegal money taken by the applicant from certain persons to illegally benefit them with respect to allotting them land as well as getting their produce at higher rates than their actual quality rate.

4. It is further apparent from the record that at the time of said interception, he was arrested and sent to jail without sanction or approval of the Competent Authority and accordingly, he was deemed to be suspended w.e.f. 17.07.2021 vide an order dated 09.08.2021, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, (CBIT and Customs).

5. It is further apparent from the record that the charge-sheet in the criminal case against the applicant was also submitted on 13.09.2021. Thereafter, the applicant applied for bail and the bail was granted by the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 15.09.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top