Tripura High Court
Sri Uttam Das Baishnab vs The State Of Tripura on 5 April, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.92/2021
Sri Uttam Das Baishnab, S/o. Lt. Harekrishna Baishnab, resident of South
Palace Compound, Agartala, P.O. Agartala Head Post Office, P.S.-West
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.
.........Appellant(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Chief Secretary in the
Department of General Administration (Personnel & Training), Government
of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat Complex, Gorkhabasti,
Agartala, P.O.-New Secretariat, Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura,
Pin Code-799010.
2. The Secretary, Department of General Administration (Personnel &
Training), Government of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat
Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, P.O.-New Secretariat, Sub Division-Sadar,
District-West Tripura, Pin Code-799010.
3. The District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura, Government of
Tripura, having his office at DM Office Complex, Belonia, P.O.-Belonia,
Sub Division-Belonia, District-South Tripura, Pin Code-799155.
4. The Under Secretary, Department of General Administration (Personnel
& Training), Government of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat
Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, P.O.-New Secretariat, Sub Division-Sadar,
District-West Tripura, Pin Code-799010.
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Pal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Date of hearing and judgment : 05th April, 2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents-State.
2. This instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.562 of 2020 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner while
serving as Deputy Collector & Magistrate, Sabroom in the year 2020 was
suspended vide an order of the Government of Tripura dated 14.05.2020 in
contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding drawn against him. Since after
expiry of 90 days there was no communication by the department of review
and extension of suspension order, petitioner submitted a representation on
21.08.2020 for revocation of his suspension. Meanwhile, the department
extended the suspension period of the petitioner by 180 days vide order
dated 20.08.2020. Assailing the said orders, the petitioner filed a writ
petition being WP(C) No.562 of 2020 which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.01.2021. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner has preferred this writ appeal for setting aside the judgment
and order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.562 of 2020. Hence, this appeal.
4. Appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Admit this appeal;
(ii) Call for the relevant records;
(iii) Issue notice to the respondents;
(iv) After hearing the parties may be pleased to quash/set
aside the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2021 passed in
WP(C) No.562 of 2020, and direct the respondents to revoke
the orders of suspension/extension of suspension of the
humble appellant, in terms of the GROUNDS set forth above,
by way of allowing the appeal;
AND
(v) Pass any other order or orders as may be deemed fit
and proper, for ends of justice."
5. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
contends that the order of suspension was passed on 14.05.2020 and the
department extended the period of suspension for 180 days vide order dated
20.08.2020 i.e. beyond the expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of
suspension which is 11.08.2020. Counsel also contends that in view of Rule
10(6) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the suspension order must be deemed
to have been lapsed after expiry of 90 days and as such, the suspension order
became invalid as it was not reviewed before expiry of 90 days. Counsel
further contends that the learned Single Judge without appreciating such
aspects of the matter passed the impugned judgment which is illegal and
unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the judgment
and order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.562 of 2020.
On the other hand, Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl.
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State, referring to an
office memorandum dated 30.03.2020 issued by the Department of
Personnel and Training, Government of India, contends that consequent
upon the outbreak of COVID-19 followed by Lockdown w.e.f. 24.03.2020 it
was decided not to count the period of lockdown for the purposes of
adherence to the prescribed timelines and as such, the delay caused in
extending the period of suspension order can appropriately be waived.
Accordingly, he contends that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
the writ petition preferred by the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the
present appeal also.
6. In view of submissions of learned counsel for the respective
parties, this Court is of the considered view that the memorandum placed by
the learned Government counsel cannot have an overriding effect on the
statute as it is apparent from the Rule 10(6) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965,
that the suspension order must be reviewed before expiry of 90 days
otherwise it must be deemed to have been lapsed after expiry of such period.
Moreover, the memorandum which the Government counsel is relying has
no bearing on this and the action of the officers taking shelter under the said
memorandum is arbitrary.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No.562 of 2020 is set aside. Consequently, the order of suspension
dated 14.05.2020 and the extension order of suspension dated 20.08.2020
are revoked. The appellant-petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith. The
respondent-department is at liberty to take any further action in accordance
with law.
8. With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal is
allowed and disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(ARINDAM LODH), J CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Pulak
