Advocates:
B. V. BALARAM DASCAVEATOR-IN-PERSON

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 9

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5007 of 2003

Appeal (civil) 5008 of 2003

PETITIONER:

Union of India

Union of India and Ors.

RESPONDENT:

Vs.

Rajiv Kumar

Bani Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/07/2003

BENCH:

DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4491 of 2003)

(Arising out of SLP(C) 12703/2003 (CC.5872/2003)

ARIJIT PASAYAT,J

Delay condoned in SLP(C)........./2003 (CC 5872/2003).

Leave granted.

The basic issue in these two appeals relates to the

scope and ambit of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1965 (in short the ’Rules’) vis-Ã -vis other provisions of

the said Rule.

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by the impugned

judgment in each case held that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 does

not contain any provision wherefrom it can be deduced that

the deemed suspension for custodial detention exceeding

forty eight hours would continue until it is withdrawn. It

was further held that on a plain reading of the said

provision it is clear that the same comes to an end by

operation of law after release of the employee from

detention.

Factual scenario is almost undisputed and needs to be

noted in brief.

Respondent-employee in each case was arrested and

detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. With

reference to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10, the order was passed

in each case indicating that in view of the detention in

custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, the concerned

employee is deemed to have been suspended with effect from

the date of suspension and shall remain suspended until

further orders.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 9

The background facts of the appeal relating to

respondent-Rajiv Kumar is referred for the purpose of

adjudicating the issues involved as the factual position in

the appeal relating to Bani Singh would not affect ultimate

conclusions. Rajiv Kumar was arrested on 26.3.1998 for

allegedly accepting bribe and was released on bail on

2.4.1998. The order purportedly under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule

10 to formally place on record was passed on 15.5.1998. On

2.7.2000 the order dated 15.5.1998 was assailed before the

Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the ’CAT’) at its

Delhi Bench on the ground that there was no reason for his

continued suspension. The prosecuting agency filed challan

on 2.9.2000. On 11.10.2000, Rajiv Kumar filed an application

for interim relief. On 9.11.2000 an order was passed by the

authorities continuing suspension. By judgment dated

14.3.2001 CAT directed the authorities to dispose of the

matter by a reasoned and speaking order. An application for

review was filed on 26.4.2001. It was rejected by an order

dated 15.5.2001. In terms of the CAT’s directions, an order

was passed on 21.5.2001. The same is stated to be the

subject matter of challenge before the Mumbai Bench of CAT.

On 3.8.2001, Civil Writ Petition No.4746/2001 was filed

before the Delhi High Court challenging the aforesaid orders

dated 14.3.2001 and 15.5.2001. At this juncture, it needs to

be noted that there was no challenge to the order dated

9.11.2000.

By the impugned judgment, the Delhi High Court came to

hold, as noted above, that CAT was not correct in remitting

the matter back to the appointing authority for

consideration of the matter afresh. It was, inter alia,

observed that if a question of law had been raised before

it, CAT was required to apply its mind and pass appropriate

orders. The impugned order of suspension was quashed. It was

held that the order dated 15.5.1998 cannot be treated to be

one passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10. It was held tha