Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Indian Institute Of Technology ... on 14 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 14, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1929/2018
RAJESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Subart, Advocate and Mr.Towseef
Ahmad, Advocate
versus
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Arjun Mitra, Advocate and
Ms.Jaskaran Kaur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Vide order of 14th July, 2017 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was placed
under suspension with immediate effect. The said suspension order was
reviewed on 24th November, 2017 vide office order (Annexure P-2) and it
was decided to continue the suspension order and to enhance the
subsistence allowance from 50% to 70%. Impugned order of 24 th
November, 2017 (Annexure P-2) is assailed in this petition on the ground
that the review of suspension has been made beyond the statutory period
of 90 days. Reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon Supreme
Court's decision in Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Dipak Mali (2010) 2
SCC 22 to submit that subsequent review and extension of suspension
beyond the period of 90 days cannot revive the suspension order as it
becomes invalid after period of 90 days. Learned counsel for respondent
submits that the process of reviewing petitioner's suspension was
initiated on 9th November, 2017 and the Review Committee vide order
(Annexure P-2) has continued petitioner's suspension and enhanced the
subsistence allowance on petitioner's application on 24th November, 2017
and since there was no deliberate delay on part of respondent, so the
impugned order deserves to be sustained.
2. The decision in Dipak Mali (supra) is sought to be distinguished by
respondent's counsel while pointing out that the suspension in the said
case was not extended as the Review Committee was never constituted,
whereas in the instant case, petitioner's suspension has been extended by
the Review Committee and in the process some delay has occurred. It is
pointed out by respondent's counsel that petitioner is not participating in
the inquiry proceedings which have commenced in February, 2018 and
the next date in the inquiry is 20th March, 2018. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that petitioner has not received any notice from Inquiry
Officer to appear. Petitioner's counsel has been apprised of the next date
of hearing in the inquiry. It is up to petitioner to take effective steps if
required or to face the consequences of non-appearance in the inquiry
proceedings.
3. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record
and the decision cited, I find that petitioner vide letter of 9th November,
2017 had sought revocation of his suspension as by then statutory period
of 90 days had lapsed. Impugned order does refer to petitioner's letter of
9th November, 2017 but misconstrues it as one seeking enhancement of
subsistence allowance. In fact, vide letter of 9th November, 2017,
petitioner had sought revocation of his suspension. Supreme Court in
Deepak Mali (supra) had found that the delay in reviewing the suspension
was not convincing. In the instant case, the explanation for the delay
occasioned is not forthcoming. In such a situation, impugned order of
24th November, 2017 (Annexure P-2) needs to be reconsidered by the
respondent while considering petitioner's letter of 9th November, 2017 as
the one seeking revocation of the suspension. Respondent is also
required to indicate the reason for the delay in carrying out the review of
petitioner's suspension.
4. Let a speaking order be passed on petitioner's application of 9th
November, 2017 by respondent within a period of six weeks and the fate
of the said application be made known to petitioner within a week
thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law,
if need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2018
mamta
