2023 (5) TMI 941 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - scope of Jurisdiction of this court - seeking stay of suspension order - HELD THAT - This Writ petition is a parallel proceeding and the relief of granting of stay of the suspension order or seeking explanation as to why the charge memo was not issued within a reasonable period, would be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this Court. We can only give a direction to the Central Administrative Tribunal to take hold of all the issues on 09.06.2023 and pass orders on the basis of the records available. However, the direction that the second respondent should be reinstated, particularly when though the matter had been adjourned to 09.06.2023 it had been taken up during the interregnum period on 26.04.2023 has to be interfered with by us and to that extent, we would give a further direction that such reinstatement shall be kept on hold and all issues can be agitated on 09.06.2023 in detail before the Central Administrative Tribunal. We are confident that Administrative Tribunal would be so doing on 09.06.2023. That portion of the order dated 27.04.2023 which directed reinstatement alone is interfered with by us since it was passed when the matter was originally listed on 09.06.2023. Such an order could have been passed on 09.06.2023 after hearing all parties. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The legality of the procedure adopted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in a specific case is challenged in a writ petition before the Madras High Court.

Summary:

Issue 1: Suspension and extension of suspension period
The petitioner alleges valid grounds for suspending the second respondent but failed to issue a charge memo within the stipulated 90 days, leading to an extension of the suspension period to 180 days. The Central Administrative Tribunal granted an interim stay on the suspension, which was later contested regarding the extension of the stay. The petitioner argues that the interim order of reinstatement to a nonsensitive post has prejudiced their case.

Issue 2: Interim orders and reinstatement
The Central Administrative Tribunal's interim order reinstating the second respondent to a nonsensitive post is challenged by the petitioner, as the matter was scheduled for further hearing on a later date. The High Court directs that the reinstatement be put on hold until all issues are thoroughly examined by the Tribunal on the scheduled date.

Issue 3: Contempt application and future proceedings
A contempt application for reinstatement filed by the second respondent is mentioned, but it is decided that the Tribunal should hear all related applications, including the Original Application, Miscellaneous Application, and Contempt Application, on the scheduled date for detailed adjudication.

Conclusion:
The High Court disposes of the writ petition, directing the Central Administrative Tribunal to address all issues comprehensively on the scheduled date. The Court interferes with the order of immediate reinstatement and emphasizes the need for a detailed examination of all aspects, including the reasons for suspension and the failure to issue a charge memo.