9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer of the Indian Revenue Service was suspended as per order dated December 28, 1999 which was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated January 17, 2003 when OA No.783/2000 filed by the respondent was allowed, but with liberty granted to the appellants to pass a fresh order after considering all the relevant facts. The respondent was once again suspended on April 25, 2003; challenge whereto failed. 4. That was the end of the issue pertaining to the respondent being suspended. 5. But, law requires continued suspension to be reassessed every six months and when the continued suspension orders started hurting the respondent by the year 2010 inasmuch as by said year he had remained suspended for 10 years, he filed OA No.2842/2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal questioning the decisions taken to continue with his suspension, which application was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal on December 16, 2011, noting that 12 years had lapsed and certain important aspects of the matter pertaining to the respondent s continued suspension were ignored when the decision was last taken to continue the suspension. Exhaustive directions were issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner which were premised on the decisions reported as 2006 (6) AD (Delhi) 749 Medical Council of India v. K.K.Arora Anr. and 1997 (4) SCC 1 Allahabad Bank Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Bhola. 10. It was held in the two decisions that mere prolonged suspension by itself is no ground to quash the suspension if the offence alleged against the delinquent involves a serious moral turpitude; suspension is not a punishment and lastly even if there is a remote likelihood of the misconduct being repeated it would justify a continued suspension. 11. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid legal principles, but then, facts of each case have to be considered. 12. The first and the foremost taint found by the Tribunal, and as per us, which is fairly serious is the abdication of duty by the Special Review Committee evidenced from the fact that the order dated February 03, 2012 has, after narrating the historical facts of the case with reference to the past litigation up to paragraph 9, followed by verbatim copying the views of CBI in paragraph 10, the so called reasons are to be found, in the words noted in paragraph 6 above. The order r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including serious allegations made against the officer and the CBI s reports. 5. Whereas, the officer had filed an OANo.2842/2010 seeking relief for quashing and setting aside his suspension. Vide order dt.16-12-2010, the Hon ble Tribunal held, If the view of the review committee and that of the competent authority may still be to continue the suspension of the applicant, speaking order in that regard shall be passed. Reasons although in brevity may be stated, but the points raised by the applicant, and as mentioned above, shall have to be met. 6. Whereas, an MA bearing No.59/2012 in OA No.2842/2010 seeking extension of time of six weeks was filed to enable the Competent Authority to comply with the impugned CAT s order as the consultation with CBI was mandatory. The Tribunal during the hearing on 09.01.2012 disposed it off directing the department to dispose off the matter by 14.01.2012. 7. Whereas, in terms of DoP T s Notification GSR No.2 (F.No.11012/4/2003-Estt.(A) published in the Gazette of India dated 03.01.2004 read with that Department s O.M. dated 07.01.2004 the CAT, PB s order dtd 16-12-2011 in OA No.2842/2010 read with order dtd 09-01-2012 in MA No.-59/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial. 4. Para No.7 It is true that CBI has been consistently of the opinion that the suspension of Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal should not be revoked. 5. Para No.8 The observation by the Hon ble CAT do not relate to CBI. 6. Para No.9 The contention of the applicant Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal as quoted in the Hon ble CAT Order, regarding the forgoing and/or not referring to the vital documents which came to light during investigations, is factually not correct. However, since the cases are under trial, no comments are being offered regarding the issue. 7. Para No.10 The observations by the Hon ble CAT do not relate to CBI. 8. Para No.11 12 As observed by the Hon ble CAT, SLPs are pending in the Hon ble Supreme Court of Indian in both the cases against Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and the matters have not come up for final adjudication yet. Hence, no comments are being offered. 9. Para No.13. The observations by the Hon ble CAT deo not relate to CBI. 10. Para No.14 The contention of the applicant Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal as quoted in the Hon ble CAT Order, regarding the exclusion of information relating to LR from Swiss Authorities in the SP s report is factually inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar Aggarwal, it may be mentioned that he is a very resourceful accused who has been filing several petitions against CBI and its officials in Hon ble Delhi High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court of India. Till now, he has filed as many as 27 petitions in the above two courts and has not allowed any meaningful progress in the trails of both the criminal cases against him. He also got complaint cases registered against the Investigating Officer of the two cases. 14(ii) Shri Ashok Aggarwal has even been laying hands on the official documents/information of Ministry of Finance in an unauthorized manner which is evident from the noting dated 27.12.2005 of Shri P.Chidambaram, the then Hon ble Finance Minister, recorded in File No.16/1/99-AD.I-C wherein he as stated- 8. I am disturbed to see Shri A.K.Aggarwal has access to files. He has annexed photocopies of a number of documents, which, normally should not be in his possession. Revenue incharge of the files and ensure that Shri Aggarwal has no access to the documents. 9. Besides there is no reason why Shri Aggarwal, who is suspended officer, should frequently visit North Block, I wonder who gives him appointments and how he is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any chance for a Writ Court to interfere, and regretfully we find that a writ petition has been filed. 17. On the subject of a civil servant being accountable for his acts during discharge of official duties, none can deny his being accountable; but it also has to be kept in mind that the process of accountability cannot be stretched indefinitely, i.e. it should not become a process where the probity of the civil servant is not being tested but it is his patience which is being tested. 18. No doubt, delay in completing departmental proceedings is by itself is no grounds to quash a suspension order, but at the same time, the issue of delay has to be factored along with such other contentions which the suspended civil servant projects with reference to the facts. It then becomes the duty of the decision making authority to take an informed decision, which would mean to take note of the admittedly relevant facts and circumstances, which in this case are the six facts and circumstances, highlighted by the Tribunal in its order dated December 16, 2011, all of which do not find a mention in the decision which has been quashed by the Tribunal, and for which we would only state even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
