2019 (3) TMI 2033 - Tri - Indian Laws

Prayer to reinstate into service and to enhance the subsistence allowance - HELD THAT - Whenever an employee is arrested and kept under detention for a period exceeding 48 hours, he shall be deemed to be under suspension. It is in the said context, that the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 is passed. Thereafter, the suspension was extended for another 180 days through order dated 28.09.2018. Rules 10 (6) empowers the Government to extend the suspension beyond 90 days, for reasons to be recorded. The respondents are yet to make up their mind whether or not to institute the departmental proceedings. That would be possible only when they get to know the relevant facts that led to the detention of the applicant. Initiation of the departmental proceedings in a hasty manner is certain to become futile. The proceedings in a criminal case on the other hand, would depend upon the nature of the progress of the investigation. Therefore, the application of the rule of 90 days in the instant case becomes a bit doubtful. Be that as it may, it is for the concerned department to decide whether or not to continue an employee under suspension. They have to weigh the gravity of the charges on one hand and interest and need of the department on the other. If the charges are frivolous and the work of the officer would be useful to the department, a decision for reinstatement may be taken. If on the other hand, if the charges are serious, a decision is bound to be in a different way. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of suspension and extension thereof.
2. Applicability of government directives on suspension duration.
3. Consideration of employee's representation for reinstatement and enhanced subsistence allowance.

Issue 1: Validity of suspension and extension thereof
The applicant, a Chief Engineer in M.E.S., Ministry of Defence, was suspended due to detention by the CBI, with the suspension initially for 90 days and later extended by 180 days. The applicant challenged the suspension orders, citing a government directive stating that suspension should not exceed 90 days unless a charge sheet is filed. The Tribunal noted that when an employee is detained for over 48 hours, suspension is deemed necessary. The extension beyond 90 days was permissible under Rule 10(6) if reasons were recorded.

Issue 2: Applicability of government directives on suspension duration
Referring to a Supreme Court case and a subsequent Delhi High Court decision, the Tribunal clarified that the automatic lapse of suspension after 90 days if no charge sheet is filed is not a clear proposition. In the present case, the applicant's detention by the CBI justified the suspension, and the decision to extend it was within the government's authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision to continue suspension should consider the gravity of charges and departmental needs, urging the department to decide based on relevant facts.

Issue 3: Consideration of employee's representation for reinstatement and enhanced subsistence allowance
The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's representation for reinstatement and increased subsistence allowance, emphasizing the department's responsibility to evaluate the representation considering the gravity of charges and departmental requirements. While declining to interfere with the suspension orders, the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide on the applicant's representation within four weeks. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the department's attention to the applicant's submissions based on the relevant facts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the suspension orders but directed the department to address the applicant's representation promptly, balancing the charges against departmental needs.