Delhi High Court
Sapan Kumar Ram vs Indira Gandhi National Open ... on 23 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 23, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2824/2018
SAPAN KUMAR RAM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prateek Tushar Mohanty,
Advocate
versus
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. Saurabh
Chauhan and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Vide order of 26th April, 2016 (Annexure P-1) petitioner, who was
working as Assistant Registrar, Regional Centre Kolkata, was placed
under suspension on account of registration of criminal case against him.
Petitioner's suspension was extended by three months vide order of 26 th
July, 2016 (Annexure P-2). Again, vide order of 26th October, 2016
(Annexure P-3), petitioner's suspension was further extended by three
months, followed by further extension of suspension vide order of 25 th
April, 2017 (Annexure P-4). However, vide order of 24th August, 2017
(Annexure P-5), petitioner's suspension was revoked while exercising
powers conferred by Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to
as CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965].
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that although departmental
inquiry is pending against petitioner, but in terms of Rule 10(1) of CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965 and the guiding principles in Swamy's Manual on
Disciplinary Proceedings for placing Government servant under
suspension, the period of suspension cannot be extended beyond the
period of 90 days. Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioner's
counsel to Fundamental Rule 54-B to submit that upon revocation of
suspension, it needs to be clarified as to how the period of suspension has
to be treated, which has not been done.
3. Quashing of suspension order (Annexure P-1) and a declaration to
the effect that petitioner is deemed to be on duty after a period of 90 days
of suspension, i.e. with effect from 26th July, 2016, is sought in this
petition.
4. To say the least, petitioner has to first approach respondent for the
relief claim in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner candidly
submits that no Representation or application has been filed before
respondent seeking relief as sought in this petition.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of while
permitting petitioner to submit application/Representation to seek the
relief as sought in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits
that the application/Representation would be submitted to respondent
within a week. If it is so done, then respondent shall pass a speaking
order thereon in light of the applicable rules and regulations within a
period of six weeks and shall convey the fate of the
application/Representation to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that
petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.
6. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for petitioner.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 23, 2018
s
