Suspension valid if reviewed within 90 days from effective date (receipt); delay in charge-sheet justified for serious embezzlement probe.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“i) a suitable order or direction setting aside Order No. F-4/2/2013-14 dated 26.05.2014 Passed by Respondent No. 4.whereby the applicant has been placed under suspension compilation No. 1) (Annexure A-1 to

ii) a suitable order or direction setting aside Order No. F4/2/2013/Ch II date 25.08.2014 (Annexure-A-2 to compilation No 1) passed by Respondent No. 4.whereby suspension period of the applicant has been extended for a further period of 90 days

iii) a suitable order or direction setting aside order No. F4/2/2013-14/Ch. IV dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure A-3 to compilation No. 1) passed by Respondent No. 4 whereby suspension period of the applicant has been extended for a further period of 90 days.

iv) a suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith reinstate the applicant on his post and accord him all consequential benefits and privileges of the said post to the applicant in accordance with law.

v) any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.

vi) award cost of this application to the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of this case are that while the applicant was posted as Postal Assistant at Ait an order was passed by respondent no.4 dated 26.05.2014 placing him under suspension in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Rule (1) of Rules 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1965). The suspension was extended for a further period of 90 days vide order dated 25.08.2014 passed by respondent no.4. Without serving any chargesheet upon the applicant, another order dated 21.11.2014 was passed by respondent no.4 whereby his period of suspension was sought to be extended for a further period of 180 days. Thereafter, the applicant received a copy of a letter dated 07.07.2014 written by Senior Superintendent of Post Office Jhansi to the Postmaster Lalitpur by which the applicant came to know that he had been placed under suspension on account of the fact that he was found involved in embezzlement of an amount of Rs.2,01,57,900/- due to negligence on his part. He had also made his representation dated 03.11.2014 against the suspension order before the Director, Postal Services Agra Mandal Agra but to no avail.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had been placed under suspension without serving upon him any charge sheet until very later on 30.04.2015 after about an year of placing him under suspension. It is argued that the applicant has been illegally placed under suspension for a very long time without service of any charge sheet within 90 days and even the suspension order did not even mention the charges against the applicant. He has further argued that the order of suspension of the applicant has been extended by the review held beyond the stipulated period of ninety days. Thus, it was argued that the suspension of the applicant is illegal and the same should be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the impugned suspension and extension of suspension orders have been passed as per rules and there is no illegality in the said orders that would require any intervention of this Tribunal. He states that the applicant while working as Savings Bank Counter Assistant at Lalitpur Head Post Office with effect from 09.01.12 to 26.02.13 made