Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5303
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, Sangam Narain Srivastava, A
V Jayanthi – Appellant
Versus
Indian Red Cross Society – Respondent
O.A./459/2024
M/s A. Veerasamy, Mr. Su Srinivasan, SCGSC
The court ruled that disciplinary actions, including suspension, are part of day-to-day affairs and not policy decisions, affirming the authority of the Ad-hoc Committee to manage such actions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 - Section 4(E) - Tamil Nadu Red Cross Society Service Rules - Suspension of employees - Applicants challenged the suspension order claiming it violated service rules and natural justice principles, asserting that the Ad-hoc Committee lacked authority to suspend them. The court found that the suspension was a part of day-to-day affairs, not a policy decision, and upheld the Ad-hoc Committee's actions. (Paras 3, 5, 14, 20)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that procedural safeguards must be followed, but the applicants failed to demonstrate a breach of these principles in the context of their suspension. (Paras 7, 18)
(C) Policy Decision vs. Day-to-Day Affairs - The court distinguished between routine management and policy decisions, ruling that disciplinary actions fall under day-to-day affairs. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, permanent employees of the Indian Red Cross Society, were suspended by an Ad-hoc Committee after the dissolution of the elected Managing Committee, claiming the suspension violated service rules and the High Court's orders.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the suspension was valid as it fell within the Ad-hoc Committee's authority to manage day-to-day affairs.
Issues: Whether the suspension constituted a policy decision or a day-to-day affair, and if the Ad-hoc Committee had the authority to suspend the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension was a day-to-day affair, not a policy decision, and the Ad-hoc Committee acted within its authority.
Result: All Original Applications dismissed.
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
An identical relief prayed for by the applicants in these Original Applications, all these OAs are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Challenging the suspension order, dated 24.1.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the speaking order, dated 26.02.2024 of the 1st respondent, the applicants have filed these applications to quash the same and for a consequential direction to retain them in their respective posts.
3. The facts as culled out from the OAs are as follows:
The applicants were made permanent employees of the Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS), Tamil Nadu Branch, and appointed to respective posts. Following the dissolution of the elected Managing Committee, the President of IRCS constituted an Ad-hoc Committee to manage the affairs of the Tamil Nadu Branch, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Jaichandren. (Retired Judge of the Hon’ble Madras High Court ) However, the applicants submit that as per Section 4(E) of the Indian Red Cross Society Act , 1920, the President cannot extend the Ad-hoc Committee's tenure beyond one year, which ended on January 24, 2024. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Madras High Court , which directed the Ad-hoc Committee to manage day-to-day affairs and conduct elections within four months, without making policy decisions. Despite this, the applicants were suspended from their employment without a show-cause notice, violating the Tamil Nadu Red Cross Society Service Rules. The suspension could only be made by the elected representatives. The applicants filed an OA, and the Tribunal directed them to submit a representation regarding their suspension. However, the 2nd respondent passed an order without hearing the applicants or considering the facts, leading to a claim that the decision was illegal and against natural justice. Consequently, the applicants have approached the Tribunal again seeking relief.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court , prior to passing the final order on 08.02.2024 in W.P. No. 1406 of 2024, issued an interim order on 23.01.2024. This order restricted the Ad-hoc Committee from making any policy decisions and permitted them only to manage the day- to-day affairs of the Indian Red Cross Society, Tamil Nadu Branch (IRCS- TNB). Therefore, the respondents are misrepresenting the High Court's order by claiming that disciplinary action falls under day-to-day affairs, when in fact, it is a policy decision.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents' assertion that disciplinary action constitutes day-to-day management is a deliberate misrepresentation of the court’s directions. He argued that suspending employees falls under the category of "Policy Decisions." A policy decision, by definition, is any decision that affects the rights, duties, or obligations of employees or institutions. Disciplinary actions such as suspension are inherently policy-driven, as they require interpreting service rules, setting procedural precedents, and making decisions that have long-term implications for organizational governance and employee rights. Therefore, disciplinary actions, including suspension, cannot be classified as routine “day-to-day affairs,” as envisaged in the Hon'ble Court's orders dated 23.01.2024 and 08.02.2024. Such actions involve strategic evaluation and are in the realm of policy decisions, not routine operational management. Thus, the suspension of the applicants by the Ad- hoc Committee constitutes a policy decision and is in direct contravention of the interim order dated 23.01.2024 and the final order dated 08.02.2024 in W.P. No. 1406 of 2024, issued by the Hon'ble First Bench of the Madras High Court .
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the Ad-hoc Committee, being a temporary body without a democratic mandate or statutory authority, does not possess the
