2023 (7) TMI 1055 - HC - GST

Suspension of Deputy Commissioner of GST - Extension of suspension of the petitioner beyond the initial period of 90 days - allegation was that petitioner has committed irregularities while processing the refunds of nearly Rs. 30 crore - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has by referring to the judgment of the Ajay Kumar Choudhary 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT and also the judgment of this Court in the case of GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VERSUS DR. RISHI ANAND 2017 (9) TMI 2005 - DELHI HIGH COURT , has held that the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary 2015 (6) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT has not laid down absolute law regarding continuance and discontinuance of power for extending suspension by the competent authority under Rule 10 CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Transfer of petitioner to Cochin, Thiruvananthapuram Zone - HELD THAT - There is no need for the respondents to continue the suspension of the petitioner is concerned, though the submission looks appealing on a first blush but while suspending the petitioner, the competent authority decided to fix the headquarter of petitioner at Cochin, Thiruvananthapuram Zone, may be for the reasons, it thought appropriate. So in that sense, it is not a case of transfer - the Tribunal is justified in upholding the continuance of the suspension of the petitioner for a further period of 180 days by dismissing the OA. This Court is of the view that the impugned order should not be interfered with, more so in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The challenge to an order extending suspension of a Direct Recruit Officer of Indian Custom and Central Excise Services beyond the initial 90-day period based on allegations of irregularities in processing refunds.

Comprehensive Details:

1. Challenge to Tribunal's Order:
The petition challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the case on merits, which extended the suspension of the officer beyond the initial 90-day period.

2. Suspension Details:
The officer was suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10(i)(a) of the Central Civil Services Rules based on allegations of irregularities amounting to nearly Rs. 30 crore in refund processing.

3. Extension of Suspension:
After the initial 90-day suspension period expired, the Suspension Review Committee recommended and the Disciplinary Authority accepted to extend the suspension for a further 180 days due to the gravity of the case and allegations.

4. Petitioner's Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the suspension could not be extended without issuing a charge sheet within 90 days, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Additionally, the petitioner contended that being transferred to a different zone made the suspension unnecessary.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal rejected the petition, stating that the Supreme Court judgment did not provide an absolute rule on suspension extensions. It upheld the suspension continuation for 180 days due to the seriousness of the charges and the need to prevent tampering with evidence.

6. Judicial Review:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the Tribunal's justification for continuing the suspension. The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.