Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6943
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V Bhairavia, J, Hukum Singh Meena, A
Ratkeshkumar Mahendrapasad Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara Zone – Respondent
Original Application No. 448/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Mr. I.H.Syed, Mr. Prithu Parimal
For the Respondents: Mr. H D Shukla
Suspension of government servants must comply with statutory limits; failure to issue a charge sheet within 90 days invalidates further extensions.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 10 - Provisions for suspension of government servants - The applicant's suspension was extended multiple times without adequate justification, violating the principles of natural justice and the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution - The Tribunal held that the suspension period should not exceed two years and directed the respondents to comply with the statutory provisions. (Paras 11, 14, 12)
(B) Suspension - Grounds for extension - The Tribunal emphasized that extensions must adhere to statutory timelines and that failure to issue a charge sheet within the stipulated period renders further extensions invalid. (Paras 10.1, 10.4)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Superintendent of CGST, was suspended following his arrest on corruption charges. His suspension was extended multiple times without issuing a charge sheet, raising questions about the legality of these extensions. (Paras 2.1, 2.8)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the extensions of suspension were beyond the statutory limit and ordered modification of the latest extension. The applicant was entitled to subsistence allowance as per FR-53. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: The main issues included whether the extensions of suspension were justified and the legality of not issuing a charge sheet within the stipulated time frame. (Paras 10.1, 10.2)
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that the extensions of suspension must comply with the statutory provisions, particularly the two-year limit, and that failure to issue a charge sheet within 90 days necessitates revocation of suspension. (Paras 10, 11)
Result: The OA was disposed of with directions to modify the suspension order and ensure the applicant receives due subsistence allowance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suspension and legal rights of an employee. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding violations of rights and procedures. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of suspension rules and extensions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. application of amended rules on suspension duration. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final orders regarding suspension and allowances. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
The applicant being aggrieved with his continuous suspension has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the A. T. Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs :-
"(A) This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 04.07.2023, 22.12.2023 and 21.06.2024 whereby the suspension of the Applicant has been extended by 180 days each and further be pleased to direct the respondents authority to revoke the suspension of the applicant w.e.f. 05.07.2023:
(B) This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents authorities to treat the period from 05.07.2023 as period spent on duty by the Applicant and to grant all consequential benefits;
(C ) This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the Estt. Order No.66 of 2024 dated 10.10.2024 issued by the Office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST, Vadodara Zone qua the applicant, whereby the applicant was once again transferred back from CGST Surat (Audit) to CGST Surat (HQ) without showing any reason;
(D) This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may required and in the interest of justice.”
2. The brief facts of the case of the applicant are as under: -
2.1 The Applicant, while working as Superintendent of CGST at Surat was arrested in connection with FIR bearing C.R.No. 11210060230940 of 2023 registered with Varachha police station under Sections 389, 447, 170, and 114 of IPC and Sections 7, 7(A) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.2 Since the criminal case was registered against the applicant and the same is under investigation by the Police, the respondents in terms of Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1965’) suspended the applicant w.e.f. 06.04.2023 vide order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure A/2 refers).
Subsequently, the respondents have also passed the order for grant of subsistence allowance in favour of the applicant in terms of FR-53. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.4.2023, the respondents had directed the applicant to report the Headquarter on daily basis.
2.3 On completion of investigation in the said criminal case registered against the applicant, the investigating authority had submitted a charge sheet on 02.06.2023 before the learned Sessions Court. The said FIR registered against the applicant was subsequently culminated into Special ACB Case No.13 of 2023. The said criminal proceeding is pending for trial before the learned Sessions & Special Court, ACB Judge, Surat.
2.4 On 16.06.2023, the learned Sessions & Special Court, Surat, granted regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant had submitted his resumption report vide his application dated 19.06.2023 (Annexures A-4 and A-5 refer).
2.5 Before completion of 90 days of his suspension, by accepting the recommendations of the Review Committee, the competent authority in exercise of power under Rule 10 (6) of the Rules of 1965 had extended the suspension for further period of 180 days w.e.f. 05.07.2023 vide order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure A/1 Colly. refer).
2.6 Since, three months of his suspension had already been over, he had submitted his application dated 08.08.2023 and claim 75% of subsistence allowance w.e.f. 6.7.2023 (Annexure A/6 refers) as per the provision contained in FR-53, followed by reminder dated 09.10.2023 (Annexure A-7 refer).
Again, on 17.11.2023 (Annexure A-8 refer), the applicant preferred another representation praying for increase in subsistence allowance upto 75% as also sought revocation of h
