Orissa High Court
WP(C)/11377/2020 on 15 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.11377 of 2020
02. 15.03.2021 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. Sadasiva Patra, learned counsel for the sole
petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Assistant Solicitor General.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred as 'the learned
Tribunal', for brevity), in O.A. No.393 of 2017.
The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"In the above facts and circumstances, the
petitioner humbly prays that the Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue writ/writs in the
nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Orders
dtd.11.07.2016, 31.10.2016, 26.04.2017 under
Annexure-1, 2, 3 respectively and the subsequently
extension orders and 08.12.2017 under Annexure-7.
And further be pleased to issue a writ / writs
in the nature of a writ mandamus commanding the
opposite parties to pay the salary and allowances of
the petitioner from the day after expiry of 90 days
from the effective date of suspension i.e. 03.10.2016
with all other benefits admissible under Law within a
stipulated time.
And further be pleased to pass any other
order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and
proper".
In course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the
parties submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack is vitiated because of the
fact that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration, the latest
2
amendment to the proviso to Sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CC & A)
Rules.
A careful examination of the impugned judgment reveals
that the learned Tribunal has made quoted the unamended proviso. From
the impugned order, the following provision has been taken into
consideration.
"Provided that no such review of suspension shall
be necessary in the case of deemed suspension
under sub-rule (2), if the government servant
continues to be under suspension at the time of
completion of ninety days of suspension and then
ninety days' period in such case will count from the
date the Government servant detained in custody is
released from detention or the date on which the
fact of his release from detention is intimated to his
appointing authority, whichever is later".
Even, a plain reading of the provision leaves no doubt in
the mind of the Court that there appears to be incorrect i.e. why the
amendment was brought in vide GID-24 under Chapter-3 and the word
'suspension' is substituted by the word 'detention'. If such amendment is
not made to the proviso to Sub-rule (7) of CCS (CC & A) Rules, then the
entire proviso will be nugatory. It is only in those cases where the
suspended employee continues to be in custody, there is no need for
reviewed of such suspension because the continuation of deemed
suspension will be there on that date.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the
matter should be re-examined by the learned Tribunal.
Hence, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and
3
remit the matter back to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack for re-examining the case only on these aspects stated above.
Parties are directed to appear before the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack on 5th April, 2021 and
produce the certified copy of this order. On such an event, the matter be
heard and disposed finally on merits.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
S.K. Mishra,J.
Savitri Ratho,J.
T.TUDU
