W.P.(C) 16499/2022

Page 1 of 14

#

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 07.08.2023

Judgment delivered on: 01.09.2023

+

W.P.(C) 16499/2022

VIKASH KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. A. S. Singh and

Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. T. P. Singh, Senior Central Govt.

Counsel for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

J U D G M E N T

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated May 20, 2022 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as the

‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1543/2021, whereby the O.A. preferred by the

petitioner was dismissed.

2.

In brief, as per the case noticed in the impugned order, petitioner

joined the Indian Revenue Service as Assistant Commissioner in 2011 and

was promoted as Deputy Commissioner in 2014. During the course of his

posting as Deputy Commissioner in 2017, he was placed under suspension

vide order dated November 10, 2017 which has been continued from time to

Digitally Signed

By:DINESH CHANDRA

Signing Date:01.09.2023

18:13:11

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 16499/2022

Page 2 of 14

time, since major penalty proceedings were contemplated.

3.

In the first round of litigation, the continued suspension orders were

challenged by the petitioner by preferring O.A. No. 3505/2018, which was

dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated December 14, 2018 in following

terms:

4.

In the second round of litigation, O.A. No.1543/2021 was preferred by

the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“(a) call for the relevant file(s)/record(s) of the Respondents and

Digitally Signed

By:DINESH CHANDRA

Signing Date:01.09.2023

18:13:11

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 16499/2022

Page 3 of 14

meet the ends of justice.”

5.

The same has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated May

20, 2022 with the following observations:

the next Suspension Review Committee meeting.”

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order passed by the

Tribunal and submits that despite directions vide order dated December 14,

2018 in the first round of litigation in O.A. No.3505/2018, the suspension

has continued in violation of Rules and judgments on issue, and charge

memo is yet to be issued. Further, the petitioner has been transferred from

the Office of Commissioner of GST, Central Excise, Kolkata to Principal

Commissioner of CGST, Bhubaneswar vide order dated August 13, 2020 but

has not been reinstated. It is further vehemently urged that the petitioner is in

no manner responsible for completion of inquiry or delay in investigation by

the Investigating Agencies and same is solely attributable to the respondents.

The delay in issuance of charge memo is further contended to be contrary to

the directions of the Tribunal as well as DoPT OM No. 11012/4/2003-

Digitally Signed

By:DINESH CHANDRA

Signing Date:01.09.2023

18:13:11

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 16499/2022

Page 4 of 14

Estt.(A) dated 07 January, 2004 and OM F. No. 11012/04/2016-Estt.(A)

dated August 23, 2016. As such, it is urged that continued and prolonged

suspension of petitioner for more than five and a half years is arbitrary and

violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

It is also urged that the judgments on issue reflect that wherever the

disciplinary proceedings have been unduly prolonged along with suspension,

the same have been set aside.

In support of the contentions, reliance is further placed upon State of

H.P. v. B.C. Thakur, 1994 SCC (L&S) 835, Union of India & Ors. v. Raj

Kishore Parija, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 235, O.P. Gupta v. Union of lndia &

Ors.,1987 (4) SCC 328, Samiran Chakrabarty v. Union of India & Ors.,

1992 SCC OnLine Cal 52, Allahabad Bank v. Sandipta Gangopadhyay,

2019 SCC OnLine Cal 2717, Samir Kumar Roy Chowdhury