#

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 W.P.(C) 16499/2022 Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed 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:

"27. We, therefore, dismiss the O.A. However, we direct that the respondents shall make endeavor to file the charge memo within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and when the Suspension Review Committee meets next, it shall specifically address the question as to whether it is desirable at all to continue the suspension, and whether the interests of the State and of the applicant would be served in case he is transferred to any other place by reinstating him. There shall be no order as to costs.”

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 peruse the same;

(b) hold and declare the extension of suspension vide letter dated 31.01.2019, 29.07.2019, 30.01.2020, 24.07.2020,19.01.2021 & 15.07.2021 [Annexure A-1 Impugned Colly)] and any subsequent order based on such impugned orders continuing the suspension of the applicant as Illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently quash/revoke/set aside the same;

(c) hold and declare that the continued and prolonged suspension of the applicant is arbitrary, illegal and void ab-initio;

(d) in consequence of the prayer above in para (b to c) above, hold and declare that the applicant is entitled for reinstatement in service with immediate effect and further that he is deemed to have been reinstated in service w.e.f. 31.01.2019 which was passed by the Respondents after the judgment and order dated 14.12.2018, illegally; (e) Hold and declare that the applicant herein is entitled for full pay and allowances at least from 31.01.2019 and accordingly appropriate W.P.(C) 16499/2022 Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed direction to the respondent to pay the difference between the salary and subsistence allowance paid with interest thereon @ 12% per month till payment;

(f) Award cost of this application and proceedings against the Respondents and in favour of the Applicant;

(g) May also pass further order(s) as deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

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

20, 2022 with the following observations:

“15. The above mentioned judgments squarely cover the applicant's case of continued suspension. However, in view of completion of various investigations and recommendations of major penalty action, already available with the respondents, the respondents should endeavour to take further necessary action for issuance of charge sheet, if so decided, and consid