2012 (9) TMI 1050 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the continued suspension of the respondent.
2. Compliance with the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
3. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Special Review Committee for continued suspension.

Summary:

1. Legality of the continued suspension of the respondent:
The respondent, a 1985 batch officer of the Indian Revenue Service, was initially suspended on December 28, 1999. This suspension was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on January 17, 2003, with liberty to the appellants to pass a fresh order. The respondent was again suspended on April 25, 2003. The law requires reassessment of continued suspension every six months. By 2010, the respondent had been suspended for 10 years and filed OA No.2842/2010 before the CAT, which was decided on December 16, 2011. The CAT noted that 12 years had lapsed and important aspects were ignored in the decision to continue the suspension. The CAT issued exhaustive directions to the Special Review Committee to reconsider the matter, allowing the Committee to obtain the view of CBI.

2. Compliance with the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT):
The Special Review Committee reconsidered the matter and passed an order on January 12, 2012, recommending continued suspension without obtaining comments from the CBI. After receiving comments from the CBI, the Committee passed another order on February 03, 2012, reiterating the decision to continue the suspension. The respondent then filed OA No.495/2012 before the CAT, which quashed the decision of the Special Review Committee. The CAT found that the Committee had failed to comply with its directions and had ignored relevant facts and contentions put forward by the respondent.

3. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Special Review Committee for continued suspension:
The CAT found that the order dated February 03, 2012, lacked reasons and merely copied historical facts and CBI's views without addressing the specific directions issued by the CAT. The Tribunal noted that the Competent Authority did not provide a reasoned and speaking order as required. The High Court agreed with the CAT's decision, highlighting the absence of discussions and reasons in the impugned orders. The Court emphasized that the process of accountability should not become a test of the civil servant's patience and that relevant facts and circumstances must be considered in decision-making.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, agreeing with the CAT's decision to quash the continued suspension of the respondent. The Court clarified that the petitioners are not required to pay back-wages and emphasized the need for a reasoned decision-making process that considers all relevant facts and circumstances. No costs were awarded.