State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Jawahar Singh & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4352 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.07.2012

+       W.P.(C) 4319/2012


STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS                                     ... Petitioners

                                         versus

JAWAHAR SINGH & ORS                                            ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Rahul Joshi
For the Respondent No.1      : Ms Harvinder Oberoi
For the Respondent No.2      : Mr Himanshu Bajaj


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition which has been filed on behalf of the State of

Maharashtra and other petitioners is directed against the order dated

26.4.2012 in OA No.3874/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that

the Tribunal allowed the original application of the respondent no.1

(Jawahar Singh) whereby he had challenged the suspension order.

2. The respondent No.1 had invoked the provisions of Rule 3(1B) of the

All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which reads as

under:-

"1(B) The period of suspension of a member of the Service on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year and the inquiry shall be completed and appropriate order shall be issued within one year from the date of suspension failing which the suspension order shall automatically stand revoked:

Provided that the suspension can be continued beyond one year only on the recommendations of the Central Ministry's Review Committee.

Provided further that the period during which the disciplinary proceedings remain stayed due to orders of a Court of law, shall be excluded from this limit of one year."

3. The respondent No.1, who was with the Indian Police Service and

from the Maharashtra Cadre was posted as Inspector General (Prisons),

Central Region, Aurangabad. Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated

against the respondent No.1 concerning inter alia the charge that he had

unauthorizedly shifted 21 convicts from Nasik Jail to Aurangabad Central

Prison and also that he held a press conference contrary to the directions

given by the higher authorities. In this matter we are however, not

concerned with the charge memo of the disciplinary proceedings which are

pending against him nor are we concerned with the original application

being OA No.3626/2011, which is pending before the Tribunal, in which

the respondent No.1 has challenged the memorandum of charges dated

06.06.2011. The present case is only concerned with the suspension order

which had been served upon the respondent No.1 in view of the fact that

the departmental proceedings had been initiated. The respondent No.1 had

been suspended w.e.f. 25.04.2011.

4. It was the case of the respondent No.1 that the suspension order

could not be continued for more than one year in view of the specific and

mandatory provisions contained in the said Rule 3(1B). It was pointed out

that the case against the respondent No.1 was not connected with any

corruption and, therefore, as per the said Rule, the suspension could not

exceed one year and that the inquiry should also have been completed

within one year from the date of the suspension. In case that did not

happen, the suspension would automatically be revoked, in view of the

specific and mandatory provisions of the said Rule.

5. The Tribunal, applying the said Rule, held that since the inquiry had

not been concluded within the mandatory period of one year, the

suspension of respondent No.1 automatically come to an end on 24.04.2012

and he would be deemed to have been reinstated in service w.e.f.

25.04.2012. The Tribunal also directed the petitioner to accordingly issue

necessary orders at the earliest. Certain other comments were made with

regard to withdrawal of the second prayer in the OA and liberty being

granted to the respondent No.1 to challenge the orders dated 25.04.2011,

22.07.2011, 05.10.2011 and 19.01.2012 in the pending OA 3626/2011 in

which the petitioner had challenged the memorandum of charges.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal

erred in passing the direction that the suspension period had automatically

come to an end on 24.04.2012 and that the respondent No.1 was deemed to

have been reinstated w.e.f. 25.04.2012. He submitted that the Tribunal

ignored the proviso to the said Rule which permitted the continuance of the

period of suspension even beyond the period of one year on the

recommendations of the Central Ministry's Review Committee. However,

on a pointed question as to whether the Central Ministry's Review

Committee had in fact continued the period of suspension on or before

24.04.2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was

not so. He submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to seek

the extension of the suspension period from the Central Ministry's Review

Committee. We find that this argument is untenable because of the fact that

any extension of the suspension period had to be sought and granted prior

to the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the said

officer was suspended. If that did not happen, the suspension would

automatically come to an end on the date on which the period of one year

expired. In this case, the period of one year expired on 24.04.2012.

7. As such, the Tribunal has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the

suspension period of the respondent No.1 came to an end automatically on

24.04.2012 in view of Rule 3(1B). Consequently, the Tribunal was also

right in stating that the respondent No.1 was deemed to have been

reinstated w.e.f. 25.04.2.012. In this case, the facts indicate that the proviso

was not at all triggered and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner

cannot take advantage of the proviso when in fact there was no

recommendation of the Central Ministry's Review Committee for

extending the period of suspension beyond the period of one year.

8. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the writ petition has no merit

and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 23, 2012 gm