2018 (12) TMI 1980 - Tri - Indian Laws

Seeking reinstatement into service on expiry of 90 days from the date of initial suspension - smuggling of red sanders - whether the suspension of an employee can be extended beyond 90 days? - HELD THAT - It was held in Dr. Rishi Anand s case 2017 (9) TMI 2005 - DELHI HIGH COURT that the very fact the observations of the Supreme Court that the suspension cannot be continued beyond 90 days in case no charge sheet is filed within that time were not applied in that case; would lead to the conclusion that the said principle cannot be ascribed the status of ratio decidendi. Further there would not have been any necessity for us to undertake any discussion on this aspect had Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was interpreted or any portion of it was struck down denuding the Government of the power to continue the suspension beyond 90 days if no charge sheet is filed. The authority of a precedent and its binding nature is certainly high when the issue decided therein is not covered by any provision of law or by an earlier precedent. The Courts subordinate to the one which authored the precedent have to religiously follow it till any legislation is made to the contrary in accordance with law. If the issue is covered by a provision of law the precedent would retain its strength if the provision is taken into account and is interpreted. The judgment then becomes a guiding tool for the interpretation or understanding the provision of law. The endeavor of Hon ble Supreme Court for decades together was to ensure transparency in Government services and public life and even new statutory agencies like CVC have been brought into existence in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court. Radical changes were brought as regards the functioning of CBI is to ensure that no laxity is exhibited in the context of dealing with the cases where allegations of corruption or misconduct of serious nature exist. The applicant is facing serious allegations. Whatever be the reasons for default in issuing charge sheet that should not become an advantage for the applicant to get reinstated into service. 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 - appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the initial suspension order dated 10.11.2017.
2. Legality of the extension orders of suspension dated 06.02.2018 and 03.08.2018.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.
4. Interpretation of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, particularly sub-rule (7).
5. Examination of whether the suspension should automatically lapse if no charge sheet is filed within 90 days.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality of the Initial Suspension Order Dated 10.11.2017
The applicant, an Indian Revenue Service officer, was suspended on 10.11.2017 under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, due to contemplated departmental proceedings for a major penalty. The suspension was based on allegations of involvement in smuggling Red Sanders. The applicant challenged this suspension as illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, arguing that it should lapse after 90 days if no charge sheet is filed.

Issue 2: Legality of the Extension Orders of Suspension Dated 06.02.2018 and 03.08.2018
The Suspension Review Committee reviewed the suspension on 06.02.2018 and extended it for 180 days due to ongoing investigations. Another extension was granted on 03.08.2018 based on additional complaints. The applicant contended that these extensions were invalid as no charge sheet had been filed within the initial 90 days, invoking the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India.

Issue 3: Applicability of the Supreme Court's Judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India
The applicant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, which directed that suspension should not extend beyond three months without serving a charge sheet. The respondents argued that this judgment was not an absolute rule but a guideline to expedite proceedings. They cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Dr. Rishi Anand, which clarified that the Supreme Court's observations were obiter dicta and not binding as a hard and fast rule.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Particularly Sub-rule (7)
Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, stipulates that suspension beyond 90 days is invalid unless reviewed and extended before the expiry of 90 days. The Tribunal noted that the suspension was reviewed and extended within the stipulated period, thus complying with the rule. The Tribunal also referred to the legislative and judicial developments, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary and subsequent interpretations by various courts.

Issue 5: Examination of Whether the Suspension Should Automatically Lapse if No Charge Sheet is Filed Within 90 Days
The Tribunal examined whether the suspension should lapse if no charge sheet is filed within 90 days. It noted that while the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary emphasized the need for timely proceedings, it did not quash the suspension in that case despite the delay. The Delhi High Court in Dr. Rishi Anand further clarified that the Supreme Court's observations were not binding as a precedent. The Tribunal concluded that the suspension could be extended if reviewed and justified by the authorities.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the OA, holding that the suspension and its extensions were legally valid as they complied with Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Tribunal directed the respondents to file the charge memo within three months and to reconsider the necessity of continued suspension during the next review, considering the possibility of transferring the applicant instead. The Tribunal emphasized that serious allegations against the applicant warranted careful handling and that procedural delays should not automatically benefit the applicant.

← Previous Next →