Braj Mohan Verma vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:41670-Db)
2025 Latest Caselaw 13138 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Braj Mohan Verma vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:41670-Db) on 12 September, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
       D.B. Civil Misc(Writ) Stay Application No. 16587/2025

                                           IN

                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12223/2025

Braj Mohan Verma S/o Shri Dhani Ram Verma, Aged About 45
Years, R/o 16/1, Head Quarter Chief Engineer, Jodhpur Zone
Complex, Banar Road, Jodhpur, (Raj.), (Presently Posted As
Director Head Quarter Chief Engineer, Jodhpur Zone, Mes (Army)
(Raj.).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.        Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
          Defence, Department Of Defence, D (Works-Ii), New
          Delhi-110011.
2.        The Engineer In Chief, Hq Military Engineer Services
          Kashmir House Rajaji Marg New Delhi 110011
3.        The Chief Engineer, Headquarter Chief Engineer Jabalpur
          Zone South Civil Lines Ridge Road Jabalpur Mp 482001
4.        The Chief Engineer, Headquarter Chief Engineer Jodhpur
          Zone Banar Road Jodhpur Rajasthan 342006
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Jog Singh Bhati.
                                   Mr. Braj Mohan Verma
                                   (petitioner-present in person)
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali for
                                   Mr. B.P. Bohra, Sr. Central Govt.
                                   Counsel.


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 12/09/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order

dated 30.05.2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,

Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal")

Original Application No. 290/00412/2024. Vide the said order, the

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (2 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

prayer of the applicant/petitioner for quashing the convening order

dated 27.09.2022, the suspension order dated 09.05.2023 and

the extension of suspension orders was rejected. Thus, being

aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are that the

petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer and in

the year 2011, he was promoted as Executive Engineer. While

working as Executive Engineer in the office of Garrison Engineer

(East), Jabalpur, it was alleged that he was indulged in certain

irregularities related to the award of tenders and execution of the

contracts during the period from 07.01.2019 to 09.02.2021

including the financial year 2021. Such allegation was the result of

certain inquiries conducted by Board of Officers, who were

directed by the Chief Engineer, Jabalpur to conduct an

investigation with regard to a pseudonymous complaint dated

24.08.2022, which was received against one Mr. I.H. Jaidi, who

was posted subsequently on transfer of the writ petitioner. By the

convening order, the investigation was ordered only for the period

from the date of joining of Mr. I.H. Zaidi till the date of convening

order.

3. The Board of Officers while conducting investigation on the

basis of the convening order, it appears that they have also

conducted investigation related to the period covered by the

petitioner which was not the basis of the convening order but was

done on their own motion of the Board of Officers. During the said

investigation i.e. covering the period while the petitioner was

working at Garrison Engineer (East), Jabalpur, the Board of

Officers allegedly found certain irregularities in the award of

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (3 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

tenders and also in the payment of contract amount without there

being any proper payment of money for the partially executed

contracts/work or where no work had been done at all.

4. The suspension order dated 09.05.2023 was issued by the

Respondent Authorities placing the petitioner under suspension in

contemplation of inquiry. Initially, the suspension order was for

only 90 days and it was extended from time to time i.e. further

extensions were made vide orders dated 03.08.2023, 02.02.2024,

03.07.2024, 09.01.2025, 08.07.2025 and final extension was

made up to 22.01.2026. Subsequently, charges were framed

during the pendency of the Original Application's proceeding and

the present writ proceedings. However, the same are not under

challenge before this Court. As such it is unnecessary to deal with

the merits of the charges in the present petition.

5. The original application before the Tribunal was filed mainly

on the ground that as per multiple circulars issued by the

respondents from time to time particularly circular dated

07.03.2016, it was provided that the pseudonymous complaint

shall not be required to be inquired or investigated and no action

shall be taken thereon. The other ground was that the suspension

order itself was based on the material collected during the

investigation which was conducted on the basis of the convening

order. The same ought not to have been the foundation for his

suspension. Further, the extension orders were also made without

recording any reasons. The continuous extension of the

suspension order of the petitioner with inordinate delay itself

amounts punishment.

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (4 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

6. The learned Tribunal after taking into account the grounds

raised by the petitioner and the defence set up by the respondents

has dismissed the original application. Aggrieved by the same, the

present writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted

that as per the circular issued by the respondent in the year 2016,

any action based on a pseudonymous complaint is prohibited and

similarly any inquiry and investigation is also prohibited. The

convening order clearly makes out that the investigation was

based on a pseudonymous complaint and thus, the investigation

was done contrary to the circular issued by the respondents

themselves. Thus, any consequential investigation conducted

based on the convening order is contrary to the circulars and thus,

the same are unsustainable and no action could have been taken

thereon.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits

that the suspension made by the authorities is the result of

investigation conducted by the Board of Officers and such

investigation is also beyond the scope of the convening order. The

authorities ought not to have made such an investigation which

was unwarranted and any material collected in the said

investigation, which was per se not authorized, cannot be

foundation for ordering suspension as well as the extension of

suspension.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that all

the extension orders of suspension were made without following

the procedure prescribed under the rules. More particularly, every

extension order must contain the reasons for the extension so as

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (5 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

to justify the same. All the extension orders are devoid of any

reasons, therefore, the very extension of the suspension orders

for such a prolonged period without reasons would amount to

punishment instead of simplicitor suspension and such an action

cannot be sustained.

10. Lastly, it is contended that if the authorities want to extend

the suspension beyond the period of initial 90 days, the

Fundamental Rules as well as The Central Civil Service rules

clearly mandate that the subsistence allowance is required to be

modified considering the period of extension and such an increase

must limit to 50% of the subsistence allowance which are payable

for the initial 90 days; that means the subsistence allowance can

be further increased by 25% i.e. it comes to total 75% of the

allowance. However, the same was also not considered and

awarded by the respondent Authorities. In view of the above

stated grounds, the convening order and also suspension of the

petitioner is required to be interfered with.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that

subsequently various circulars and memorandum were issued by

the Ministry of Personnel which clearly show that if there are

verifiable facts in the pseudonymous complaint, the authority can

order for investigation/inquiry. It cannot be contended that the

investigation is prohibited. The authorities who conducted an

inquiry based on the convening order has found certain

irregularities based on verifiable facts in pseudonymous complaint.

The said action cannot be said to be contrary to the circular as

well as the memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel.

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (6 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

12. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the

respondents that the extension of suspension was required as

there are serious allegations related to the award and finalization

of the tenders and also in the execution of the award based on the

tenders. In the event of such serious allegations, the petitioner

cannot be ordered to be reinstated so as to the effect the inquiry

proceedings.

13. Lastly, it is also submitted that the authorities have found

out that in the present factual matrix no case for an increase of

subsistence allowance is made out. Moreover, the increase of

subsistence allowance is discretionary power vested with the

disciplinary authority. The authorities, therefore, exercised their

discretion not to give any increase in the subsistence allowance.

Thus, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right any increase

in the subsistence allowance. Accordingly, it was prayed that the

writ petition be dismissed as there is no perversity in the order

impugned in the present case.

14. We have gone through the arguments advanced by both the

parties and the material available on record.

15. On perusal of the convening order dated 27.09.2022, it is

clear that the pseudonymous complaint was related to the period

commencing after joining of Mr. I.H. Zaidi till the date of the

convening order. The investigation was directed to be conducted

by the Board of Officers only for the period of related to the

working of Mr. I.H. Zaidi who was posted subsequently to the

petitioner's transfer to other Department. It appears that the

Board of Officers while undertaking the investigation based on the

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (7 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

convening order conducted investigation for period when the

petitioner was posted prior to Mr. I.H. Zaidi.

16. Thus, it cannot be said that the investigation done by the

Board of Officers was in consequence of the convening order as

the same is a specific order which only directed/allowed the Board

of Officers to conduct an inquiry/investigation only for the period

after joining of Mr. I.H. Zaidi till the date of convening order. The

pseudonymous complaint was also filed for the same period.

Moreover, Mr. I.H. Zaidi has not challenged any such proceedings

before the Tribunal as well as this Court. The investigation done by

the Board of Officers is not in consequence of the direction given

under the convening order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

material collected in the investigation was in pursuance of the

convening order.

17. It is not a case of the petitioner that the Board of Officers

have no power to conduct any inquiry or investigation independent

of the convening order. Further, the preliminary inquiry conducted

by the Board of Officers ought not referred to the convening order

but was the exercise of independent powers by the said authority.

Unless it is demonstrated before this Court that such officers

cannot make any preliminary inquiry, it cannot be contended that

such an action by the Board of Officers is without jurisdiction.

Therefore, the challenge to the convening order requires no

interference by this Court as rightly held by the Tribunal.

18. Further, a glance at the suspension order clearly reflect that

it only refers to simplicitor suspension in contemplation of the

inquiry. It is not indicated in the suspension order whether the

material were collected by the Board of Officers in pursuance of

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (8 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

the convening order or an independent investigation was

conducted by the said Officers. It only refers to suspension in

contemplation of inquiry, a power which can be exercised by the

Appointing Authority or Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the

suspension order cannot be said to be without power and the

Tribunal was right in not interfering with it. We see no reason to

interfere with the suspension order.

19. Dealing with the extension orders, Rule 53 of the

Fundamental Rules framed by the Central Government deals with

the payment of allowance during the period over and above the

initial period of suspension i.e. above 90 days. The said Rule

clearly postulate the provision regarding payment of subsistence

allowance. It is appropriate to reproduce Rule 53 which is as

under:-

"F.R. 53. (1) A Government servant under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority shall be entitled to the following payments, namely:-

(i) in the case of a Commissioned Officer of the Indian Medical Department or a Warrant Officer in Civil employ who is liable to revert to Military duty, the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he been suspended while in military employment;

(ii) in the case of any other Government servant-

(a) a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government servant would have drawn, if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half-pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary:

Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds three months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first three months as follows:-

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (9 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

(i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first three months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Government servant;

(ii) the amount of subsistence allowance, may be reduced by a suitable amount, not exceeding 50 per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of the first three months, if, in the opinion of the said authority, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Government servant;

(iii) the rate of dearness allowance will be based on the increased or, as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under sub-clauses (i) and

(ii) above.

(b) Any other compensatory allowances admissible form time to time on the basis of pay of which the Government servant was in receipt on the date of suspension subject to the fulfilment of other conditions laid down for the drawal of such allowances.

(2) No payment under sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation:

Provided that in the case of a Government servant dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service, who is deemed to have been placed or to continue to be under suspension from the date of such dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement, under sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and who fails to produce such a certificate for any period or periods during which he is deemed to be placed or to continue to be under suspension, he shall be entitled to the subsistence allowance and other allowances equal to the amount by which his earnings during such period or periods,

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (10 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

as the case may be, fall short of the amount of subsistence allowance and other allowances that would otherwise be admissible to him; where the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible to him are equal to or less than the amount earned by him, nothing in this proviso shall apply to him."

20. A glance of Rule 53 it clarifies that it deals with the payment

of subsistence allowance and it states that a discretion is vested

with the Appointing Authority/Disciplinary Authority to increase

the subsistence allowance over and above the subsistence

allowance payable for the initial 90 days. Further, the maximum

increase is 50% of the initial subsistence allowance and such

increase can only be done, if in the opinion of authority, the

prolongation of suspension is not attributable to delinquent and to

that effect reason must be recorded.

21. We have also gone through all the extension orders. The

Apex Court while dealing similar factual matrix in case of Ajay

Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through his Secretary

& Anr.; (2015) 7 SCC 291, categorically held that every

extension of suspension order must contain reasons. The relevant

paragraph no. 21 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (11 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."

22. Having gone through all the extension orders, it is clear that

no reasons has been assigned for such prolonged extension.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not rightly

appreciated the requirement for the extension of suspension

orders. Therefore, the extension of suspension orders requires to

be interfered and set aside. It is made clear that observation

made herein shall not come in the way of the rights of parties with

reference to the charges framed subsequent to the present

proceedings. It is open for both the parties to state their

respective grievances related to the charges.

23. In the result, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12223/2025 is partly

allowed as follows:-

(Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40840-DB] (12 of 12) [CMS-16587/2025]

(i) The findings of the Tribunal with regard to convening order

as well as the suspension order requires no interference.

(ii) The findings of the learned Tribunal rejecting the prayer for

setting aside the extension order requires interference.

(iii) The said finding is set aside and all the extension orders are

set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated forthwith.

(iv) No orders as to costs.

24. Stay application and all pending applications also stand

disposed of.

                                    (BIPIN GUPTA),J                                        (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
                                     159-sumer/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 18/09/2025 at 12:46:43 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)