Continued suspension without charge sheet issuance past 90 days isn't automatically void; justification based on severity of allegations and public interest may uphold the extension.

ORDER

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Since the grievance raised by the applicant in both the OA Nos. 408/2021 and 172/2022 are same and similar, though we heard the matter one after the other, this common order is passed, which will govern both the cases.

2. The facts of the matter are that the applicant while continuing as Postal Assistant, Rairangpur H.O. in the District of Mayurbhanj, Odisha was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings on the allegation of defalcation/misappropriation/embezzlement of govt. money to the tune of Rs. 4, 81,34,345.00 by the competent authority vide order dated 09.04.2021 in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 10 of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control an Appeal) Rules 1965. The said order of his suspension was subsequently extended for another period of 180 days with effect from 08.07.2021 vide order dated 02.07.2021. He submitted representation dated 05.07.2021 against his continued order of suspension and, after being unsuccessful, he approached this Bench in OA No. 408 of 2021 praying to quash the said order dated 02.07.2021 on the ground that continued suspension/extension of suspension without serving charge sheet within a period of 90 days being opposed to law laid down Ajay Kumar Choudhary by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vs Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 , he is entitled to the relief.

3. During the pendency of this OA, his order of suspension was again extended vide order dated 30.12.2021, which he has challenged in OA No. 172/2022 and sought to quash by stating that extension of his suspension/continued suspension without charge sheet is bad in law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary the case of (supra).

4. Respondents filed their counter stating inter alia that there was no injustice caused to the Applicant in the decision making process of the matter in placing the applicant under suspension and subsequent review on the recommendation of the Review Committee in view of the gravity of offence. The Respondents have also explained the reason for delay in issuing the charge sheet, however, the Respondents produced a copy of the charge sheet meaning while issued vide Memorandum No. F/4-6/2020- 21/Disc-I dated 31.08.2023 under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and steps taken thereafter.

5. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since no charge sheet was issued to the applicant within 90 days, as per Rules and Law laid down in the Ajay Kumar Choudhary (surpa) case of , his suspension remained nonexistence in the eyes of law and he ought to have been taken back to service. This was countered by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in course of submission by stating that there is no hard and fast provision embodied in the rule nor it has been clearly Apex Court in the case of (supra) that in the event no charge sheet is served within 90 days, suspension order of an employee gets extinguished and the employee concerned is deemed to be reinstated to service.

6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the pleadings in the OA, counter, rejoinder and written note of submissions filed by respective parties. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above.

7. It may be noted that the applicant filed OA No. 537/2023 before this Bench seeking direction to the respondents for enhancement of his subsistence allowance from 60% to 75%, which is pending for final adjudication.

8. After receipt of the charge sheet, he has also filed OA No. 791/2023 before this Bench praying for direction to the respondents to supply him the documents, which was disposed of on 20.12.2023 with direction to the respondents to consider the pending repre