1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1912 OF 2015

(Arising out of SLP © No. 31761 of 2013

AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY

.….. APPELLANT

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS. .…..RESPONDENTS

SECRETARY & ANR.

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1

Leave granted.

2

The Appellant assails his suspension which was effected

on 30.9.2011 and has been extended and continued ever

since. In November, 2006, he was posted as the Defence

Estate Officer (DEO) Kashmir Circle, Jammu & Kashmir.

During this tenure it was discovered that a large portion of

Digitally signed by

Usha Rani Bhardwaj

Date: 2015.02.18

13:41:40 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

the land owned by the Union of India and held by the

Director General Defence Estates had not been

mutated/noted in the Revenue records as Defence Lands.

The Appellant alleges that between 2008 and 2009,

Office-notes were prepared by his staff, namely, Shri Vijay

Kumar, SDO-II, Smt. Amarjit Kaur, SDO-III, Shri Abdul Sayoom

Technical Assistant, and Shri Noor Mohd., LDC, that

approximately four acres of land were not Defence Lands,

but were private lands in respect of which NOCs could be

issued. These NOCs were accordingly issued by the

Appellant. Thereafter, on 3.4.2010, the Appellant was

transferred to Ambala Cantt. However, vide letter dated

25.1.2011 the Appellant was asked to give his explanation

for issuing the factually incorrect NOCs. In his reply the

Appellant admitted his mistake, denied any mala fides in

issuing the NOCs, and attributed the issuance of the NOCs to

the notes prepared by the subordinate staff of

SDOs/Technical Officer. It was in this background that he

received the Suspension Order dated 30.9.2011. Various

3

litigation was fruitlessly initiated by the Appellant in the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, as well

as in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, with which we are

not concerned. The Appellant asserts that since the subject

land was within the parameter wall of the Air Force Station,

no physical transfer thereof has occurred. On 28.12.2011

the Appellant’s suspension was extended for the first time

for a further period of 180 days. This prompted the

Appellant to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Chandigarh Bench (CAT), and during the pendency of the

proceedings the second extension was ordered with effect

from 26.6.2012 for another period of 180 days. The

challenge to these extensions did not meet with success

before the CAT. Thereafter, the third extension of the

Appellant’s suspension was ordered on 21.12.2012, but for a

period of 90 days. It came to be followed by the fourth

suspension for yet another period of 90 days with effect from

22.3.2013.

4

3

It appears that the Tribunal gave partial relief to the

Appellant in terms of its Order dated 22.5.2013 opining that

no employee can be indefinitely suspended; that disciplinary

proceedings have to be concluded within a reasonable

period. The CAT directed that if no charge memo was issued

to the Appellant before the expiry on 21.6.2013 of the then

prevailing period the Appellant would be reinstated in

service. The CAT further ordered that if it was decided to

conduct an Inquiry it had to be concluded “in a time bound

manner”. The Appellant alleges that the suspension was not

extended beyond 19.6.2013 but this is not correct. The

Respondent, Union of India filed a Writ Petition before the

Delhi High Court contending that the Tribunal had exercised

power not possessed by it inasmuch as it directed that the

suspension would not be extended if the charge memo was

served on the Appellant after the expiry of 90 days from

19.3.2013 (i.e. the currency of the then extant Suspension

Order). This challenge has found favour with the Court in

terms of the impugned Judgment dated