Tripura High Court
Sri Debasish Shil (Aged About 42 Years) ... vs The State Of Tripura on 27 September, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 563 OF 2024
Sri Debasish Shil (aged about 42 years) son of Kajal Baran
Shil, resident of Sreepalli, Badharghat, P.O.- A.D. Nagar,
P.S. A.D. Nagar, Sub-Division- Agartala, District- West
Tripura, Pin-799003.
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Tripura, New
Capital Complex, PO-New Secretariat, PS-New Capital
Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin- 799010;
2. The Inspector General of Prisons, Office of the
Inspector General of Prisons, Prison Directorate,
Government of Tripura, Jail-Ashram Road, near Old
Central Jail Complex, PO-Dhaleswar, PS-East Agartala,
Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin- 799007;
3. The Superintendent, Kendriya Sansodhanagar,
Tripura, Bishalgarh, P.O. + P.S. Bishalgarh, District-
Sepahijala, Tripura, Pin- 799102;
4. The Superintendent, Belonia Sub-Jail, P.O. + P.S.
Belonia, District- South Tripura, Pin- 799155;
..... Respondents.
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate.
For the respondent (s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Whether fit for
reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
27.09.2024
Judgment & Order(Oral)
By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for quashing the order dated 12th August, 2024 [Annexure-6 to the writ
2
petition] issued by the respondent no.2 whereby and whereunder the
suspension order of the petitioner was extended after its review.
2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner while
discharging his duties as Sub-Jailor under the respondents has been suspended
vide order dated 16.05.2024 on the ground of alleged misconduct. It is stated
that the respondent no.2 vide order dated 09.08.2024 constituted a Review
Committee to review the suspension order of the petitioner. The main
contention of the petitioner is that the review of the suspension order
extending the period of suspension vide order dated 12th August, 2024, suffers
from serious infirmity as it was passed in violation of Rule 10(6) of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965 ( for
short, CCS(CCA) Rules. The impugned order dated 12th August, 2024 may be
reproduced here-under, which reads thus:
"Government of Tripura,
Office of the Inspector General of Prisons,
Prisons Director, Agartala.
No.F.X-704/IGP/2024/2344-51 Dated, the 12th August, 2024.
ORDER
WHEREAS, Shri Debashis Shil, Sub-Jailor, the then Jailor In-charge
of Kendriya Sansodhanagar Tripura, Bishalgarh has been placed under
suspension vide order No. No.F.X-704/IGP/2024/1419-25 dated 16/05/2024
and a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him.
WHEREAS, the Standing Review Committee has recommended that
period of suspension of Sri Debashis Shil, Sub-Jailor, Belonia Sub-Jail may
be extended.
NOW, THEREFORE, it has been decided to extend the suspension
period of Shri Debashis Shil, Sub-Jailor, the then Jailor In-Charge of
Kendriya Sansodhanagar Tripura, Bishalgarh for further period of 90
(ninety) days w.e.f. 14/08/2024 to 11/11/2024. During suspension period the
headquarter of Sri Shil, Sub-Jailor will be the existing place i.e. Belonia
Sub-Jail, South Tripura.
Sd/-
Inspector General of Prisons,
Tripura."
3. I have heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-
respondents.
4. According to Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965-- "An order
of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be
reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the
suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension,
on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose
and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent
reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension.
Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and
eighty days at a time."
5. Chapter-2 & Chapter-3 of Swamy's Compilation of the CCS
(CCA) Rules encapsulated various Govt. of India instructions stipulating
guidelines for dealing with the various aspects of suspension vis-à-vis the
matter of review. Clauses 13 and 23 in this regard are very much relevant in
regard to the suspension order as contemplated under Rule 10(6) of the
CCS(CCA) Rules. Clause 13 of Chapter-2 of the CCS(CCA) Rules speaks
about the composition of Review Committee, which reads thus:
"13. Review of suspension:
Rule 10 has been amended providing that an order of suspension
shall be reviewed by the competent authority on the recommendations of the
Review Committee constituted for this purpose. Further, an order of
suspension shall not be valid after 90 days unless it is extended after review
before the expiry of 90 days.
The composition of Review Committee(s) may be as follows:-
"(i) The disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and another
officer of the level of disciplinary/appellate authority from the same office or
from another Central Government office (in case another officer of same
level is not available in the same office), in a case where the president is not
the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority.
(ii) The disciplinary authority and two officers of the level of
Secretary/Additional Secretary/ Joint Secretary who are equivalent of higher
in rank than the disciplinary authority from the same office or from another
Central Government office (in case another officer of same level is not
available in the same office), in a case where the appellate authority is the
President.
(iii) Three officers of the level of Secretary/Additional
Secretary/Joint Secretary who are higher in rank than the suspended official
from the same Department/Office or from another Central Government
Department/Office ( in case another officer of same level is not available in
the same office), in a case where the disciplinary authority is the president."
Clause 23 of Chapter-3 of the said compilation also speaks
in the similar tune, which is as under:
"(23) Suspension of Government servants--Constitution of Review
Committees.--Rule 10 (suspension) of the CCS (CCA) Rules,1965 is being
amended to provide that an order of suspension made or deemed to have
been made under this Rule shall be reviewed by the Competent Authority on
recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose. It is
also being provided in the Rules that an order of suspension made or
deemed to have been under sub-rule(1) or (2) of Rule 10 shall not be valid
after 90 days unless it is extended after review for a further period before the
expiry of 90 days, it is further being provided that extension of suspension
shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.
2. It is, therefore, necessary to constitute Review Committee(s) to
review the suspension cases. The composition of Review Committee(s) may
be as follows:--
"(i) The Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate authority and another
officer of the level of Disciplinary/Appellate authority from the same office
or from another Central Government office (in case another officer of same
level is not available in the same office), in a case where the President is not
the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority.
(ii) The Disciplinary Authority and two officers of the level of
Secretary/Additional Secretary/ Joint Secretary who are equivalent of higher
in rank than the Disciplinary Authority from the same office or from another
Central Government office (in case another officer of same level is not
available in the same office), in a case where the appellate authority is the
President.
(iii) Three officers of the level of Secretary/Additional
Secretary/Joint Secretary who are higher in rank than the suspended official
from the same Department/Office or from another Central Government
Department/Office ( in case another officer of same level is not available in
the same office), in a case where the Disciplinary Authority is the president.
The Administrative Ministry/Department/Office concerned may constitute
the review committees as indicated above on a permanent basis or ad hoc
basis."
6. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel referring to the Govt. of India,
Department of Personnel & Training, Office Memorandum (for short, O.M.)
No.11012/4/2003-Estt.(A) dated the 7th January, 2004 argues that the review
of the suspension order of the petitioner was not made by the competent
authority. Learned counsel has placed on record the order dated 9th August,
2024 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] wherein the Inspector General of
Prisons constituted the Review Committee to review the
suspension/revocation including disciplinary action against Group-C staff of
Home (Jail) department. The composition of the Committee under order dated
9th August, 2024 may be reproduced here-under, in verbatim, for convenience:
"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS
PRISONS DIRECTORATE, AGARTALA
No.F.X-704/1GP/2024/(P)/2315-33 Dated 09th August, 2024.
ORDER
Subject: Review committee of Home (Jail) Department.
The committee has been constituted with the following officials of
Home (Jail) Department, Government of Tripura to review the
suspension/revocation including disciplinary action against Group-C staff of
Home (Jail) department which is lying in Prisons Directorate, Agartala. The
committee is valid until further order.
1. Shri Arindam Das, OSD, Head of Office, Prisons Directorate, Agartala,
Chairman of the Committee.
2. Shri Rakesh Chakraborty, (SDM) Superintendent, Kendriya
Sansodhanagar Tripura, Bishalgarh, Member of the Committee.
3. Shri Anupam Chakraborty, OSD, Nodal Officer, Prisons Directorate,
Agartala, Member of the Committee.
4. Smt. Sima Debbarma, U.D. Clerk, Prisons Directorate, Agartala, Member
of the Committee.
The committee should report to the undersigned from time to time, as per
existing rule. This order shall take immediate effect.
Sd/-
(A.R. Reddy, IPS)
Inspector General of Prisons
Tripura."
7. Referring to the above composition of the Review Committee,
Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the
O.M. No. 11012/4/2003 which had been published in GSR No.2 of the
Gazette dated 07.01.2004 has grossly been violated by the respondents.
According to learned counsel, the Committee has been constituted without the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. As such, the review order
extending the suspension period by the said Committee is illegal, arbitrary and
not tenable in law.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing
for the respondents has relied upon the order dated 9 th August, 2024, quoted
here-in-above and has tried to defend the action of the respondents.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
10. Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rules clearly stipulates that a
suspension order shall not be valid after 90 (ninety) days unless it is extended
after review for a further period before the expiry of 90(ninety) days and such
review has to be made by the authority which is competent to modify or
revoke the suspension order.
11. On careful consideration of the Order dated 9th August, 2024, I
find substantial force in the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. Under Order dated 9th August, 2024 the Review
Committee had been constituted without inclusion of the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority. As such, the composition of the
Review Committee under Order dated 9th August, 2024 itself is inconsistent to
the Govt. of India instructions published under O.M. No.11012/4/2003, dated
07.01.2004 read with Rule 10(6) of CCS(CCA) Rules and made the Review
Committee incompetent to exercise the power of review for the purpose of
extension of suspension period.
12. An order or decision issued by an authority lacking the necessary
competence or jurisdiction is fundamentally flawed, striking at the very
foundation of its authority. Consequently, such an order or decision is null and
void from its inception (ab initio) and being devoid of legal validity is not
enforceable against the person upon whom such order is passed.
13. In the instant case, what has been emerged is that the competent
authority of the respondents constituted the Review Committee without
inclusion of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority ignoring
the mandate of Govt. of India guidelines/instructions published under O.M.
dated 07.01.2004 read with Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. In view of
this, the Review Committee so constituted is incompetent to review the
extension of the suspension period of the petitioner leading to its order
unenforceable at the very inception.
14. As sequel, the review order extending the period of suspension of
the petitioner after 90 (ninety) days w.e.f. 14.08.2024 to 11.11.2024 is not
sustainable being violative of the provision of Rule 10(6) of the CCS(CCA)
Rules and the related Govt. of India instructions as stated here-in-above.
Accordingly, the impugned review order dated 12th August, 2024 passed by
the respondent no.2, the Inspector General of Prisons, based on the report and
decision of the incompetent Review Committee, is hereby set aside and
quashed.
15. For the aforesaid narration of facts, relevant law and the reasons
recorded thereof, the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
SANJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SANJAY GHOSH
Date: 2024.10.01 17:01:04 +05'30'
sanjay
