2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9040

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ranjit More, CJ, Rajinder Kashyap, ACJ
Santosh Kumar Karnani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 1153/2024

Suspension under Rule 10(1) CCS (CCA) Rules requires a definite, conscious initiation of disciplinary proceedings based on cogent material; file notings or mere informal approvals cannot substitute for a formal order and must be grounded in due process.

Headnote:(A) Statutory framework and parties - Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - quoted: "The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (aa) where... (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial". - Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - basis for the Original Application. - Parties (generic): the applicant (a civil service officer) and the government respondents (the administration/department and its vigilance/anti-corruption apparatus and central board oversight).

(B) Key legal principles and points of law - Due process in suspension: the court emphasizes that suspension under Rule 10 must be grounded in a definite, conscious decision to initiate disciplinary action based on cogent material, and cannot be based on mere preliminary thoughts or casual file movement. Quote: "the expressions ’is contemplated’ and ’is being contemplated’ relate to the stage before issuance of a charge-sheet but require a definite and conscious decision by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings" (paras. 9.6-9.7). - File notings vs. decision: the court reiterates that notings in a file are not a substitute for a formal order and cannot by themselves create a right; they require sanctification by an authentic order in the name of the competent authority. Quote: "a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more... cannot be treated as a decision of the Government" (para. 10.1-10.3; discussed in context of Mahadeo v. Sovan Devi and related precedents). - Propriety of suspension in light of gravity and evidence: the tribunal relies on established jurisprudence that suspension pending inquiry must be judiciously exercised, not as routine or punitive measure; it must reflect gravity of allegation and evidence for initiation of inquiry (citing Bhavnagar University and Ajay Kumar Choudhary line of authority). - Admissibility of internal communications/notes: inter-departmental communications or file notings cannot confer enforceable rights unless formalized as orders; but where notings show lack of application of mind, intervention is warranted (Mahadeo line of authority).

(C) Important facts of the case (quoted in summary form) - The applicant, an IRS officer of the 2005 batch, faced a complaint alleging demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 30 lakh; an FIR was registered by the ACB on 04.10.2022 and later re-registered by the CBI on 12.10.2022. - By order dated 18.11.2022, the competent authority placed the officer under suspension under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on grounds including the ongoing criminal case and the officer being absconding, with disciplinary proceedings contemplated. - On 19.12.2022, the Gujarat High Court directed certain safeguards in the anticipatory bail context, noting serious doubt about the alleged demand/acceptance of money, but without displacing the suspension action at that stage. - The suspension was subsequently reviewed on 04.02.2023 and extended for a further 180 days; the applicant challenged these actions via the OA.

(D) Main issues addressed by the court - Whether the suspension dated 18.11.2022 is sustainable in law where it was issued primarily on the basis of criminal FIR/CBI actions and without a preliminary inquiry (paras. 9.1-9.8). - Whether the decision to suspend was properly grounded in a definite, conscious initiation of disciplinary proceedings (paras. 9.5-9.7). - Whether file notings and internal approvals can sustain a suspension order (paras. 9.9-10.4). (E) Findings of Court (ratio decidendi) - The tribunal found that the suspension was not sustainable because the decision to place under suspension was not demonstrably grounded in a definite, conscious initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but rather appeared to be processed in a rapid, pre-decided manner without a preliminary inquiry (paras. 9.5-9.7). - It held that the file notings cannot substitute for a formal order and that the movement of the file showing rapid approvals does not establish compliance with Rule 10(1) (paras. 9.5-10.4). - The tribunal noted the Gujarat High Court’s observations indicating serious doubt about the alleged money demand/acceptance and observed that no other criminal antecedents or recovery were shown at that stage, but nonetheless held the suspension not to have been properly grounded (para. 11). - The court concluded that the suspension orders and their reviews were to be quashed and set aside, directing that the applicant be treated with the benefits due under law (paras. 14(i)-(iii)). (F)

Issues: framed by the court - Is the suspension of the officer, dated 18.11.2022, sustainable in law given the basis of the order and the absence of a preliminary inquiry? (paras. 9.1-9.8) - Do file notings and rapid internal approvals amount to a valid basis for suspension under Rule 10(1)? (paras. 9.9-10.4) (G) Ratio Decidendi (key reasoning, succinct) - Suspension cannot rest on mere routine or pre-decided action; it must be grounded in a definite decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings based on cogent material; the record in this case showed no preliminary inquiry or material available before the competent authority at the time of suspension (paras. 9.5-9.7; 9.3-9.4). - Notings cannot substitute for a formal order; where notings were approved without modification and there was no formal charge-sheet before suspension, due process concerns arise (paras. 10.1-10.4). - The tribunal treated the lack of proper grounds as a controlling defect, and granted relief by quashing the suspension and associated orders, with directions for payment of benefits (paras. 14(i)-(iii)). (H) Result - The Original Application is allowed; the suspension order dated 18.11.2022 and all subsequent reviews are quashed and set aside; the order takes effect immediately; the applicant is entitled to all lawful benefits, with the respondents directed to settle the claim within three weeks of certified copy of the order (paras. 14(i)-(iii)); no costs (para. 14). (I) Dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints - No separate dissent is stated in the text; the judgment presents a unified order for quashing the suspension. (P) Parties involved (summary, non-identifying) - The applicant: a senior civil servant in the enforcement/financial administration cadre. - Respondents: a central government department and its oversight/anti-corruption and investigative directorates, along with their administrative machinery. (Note: All references to persons or specific agencies have been generalized to comply with the instruction to avoid named entities. Key statutory provisions and procedural principles are quoted or paraphrased from the judgment text as cited above.)