Delhi High Court
National Council Of Education ... vs Ved Prakash on 25 April, 2014
$~13
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 527/2014
% Date of Decision: 25th April, 2014
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATION RESEARCH
AND TRAINING ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Anand Nandan, Adv.
versus
VED PRAKASH ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Shanker Raju and
Mr.Nilansh Gaur, advts.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Caveat No.79/2014
Caveator has been represented. Caveat is therefore
discharged.
C.M.No.1063/2014 (for exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 527/2014
1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 6th
November, 2013 passed in O.A.No.1006/2013 by the
Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the prayer of the
respondent herein challenging the extension of period for
which he was suspended when disciplinary proceedings
were contemplated against him. The respondent in the
present case was placed under suspension in terms of Rule
10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 14th
March, 2012 with immediate effect. The respondent's
suspension was reviewed on 8th June, 2012 whereby his
suspension was extended for a period of another three
months. Therefore the next review in accordance with law
was due on 7th September, 2012. It is an admitted position
that the petitioner failed to review the suspension of the
respondent and undertook this exercise only on 22nd
November, 2012. As a result, vide the order dated 23rd
November, 2012 the respondent's suspension was extended
for a further period of six months.
2. The respondent's representation dated 22nd November,
2012 complaining of breach of rule 10 (6) and (7) of CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965 contending that continued suspension
beyond 90 days after issuance of the order dated 14th March,
2012 was not legal, was not favourably considered. The
respondent consequently filed O.A.No.1006/2013
challenging the action of the respondent in not permitting
him to join duty and prayed that the period beyond 12th
September, 2012 be considered as duty for all purposes.
3. It is not disputed that the petitioner was subjected to
disciplinary proceedings. However, it is not necessary to
examine these proceedings in the present case.
4. One important fact which intervened requires to be
noted. It appears that a second charge sheet under Rule 14
of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 dated 30th July, 2012 was issued
to the respondent. Pursuant to an order dated 1st August,
2013, the petitioner was suspended for a second time. This
suspension and the disciplinary proceedings are subject
matter of a separate challenge by way of O.A.No.2741/2013
on behalf of the respondent which is stated to be pending.
The present consideration and order is without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the parties in the second
application filed by the respondent which is pending before
the Tribunal.
5. The review of the respondent's suspension on 8th June,
2012 was within the period prescribed under Rule 10 (6) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the petitioner possibly cannot
make any grievance with regard to the extension of
suspension till the 8th of September, 2012. However, the
second review effected on 22nd November, 2012 was way
beyond the period prescribed under Rule 10 (6) and (7) of
the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and therefore was illegal and
not sustainable.
While considering the matter, the Tribunal has
overlooked the fact that the respondent's suspension was
actually reviewed on 8th June, 2012 within the period
prescribed by law. To the extent that the impugned order
grants relief qua the suspension upto 7th of September, 2012
as well, there is an error in the impugned order dated 6 th
November, 2013.
6. In view the above, we hold and direct as follows:
(i) It is held that respondent's suspension from the 14th
March, 2012 to 14th September, 2012 was in terms of the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and legal.
(ii) The extension of respondent's suspension by the order
dated 23rd November, 2012 was in violation of Rule 10 (6)
of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and therefore is unsustainable
and is hereby quashed.
(iii) The order of the Tribunal dated 6th November, 2013 in
O.A. No.1006/2013 shall stand modified and substituted by
the above directions.
(iv) The petitioner shall compute the amounts payable to
the appellant in terms of the present order and inform the
respondent about the same within four weeks from today.
The payment of dues to the respondent, if any, if not already
done, shall be effected within a period of eight weeks from
today.
7. This petition is disposed of in the above terms.
C.M.No.1062/2014 (for stay)
8. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this
application does not survive for consideration and is
therefore dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
APRIL 25, 2014
rb
