Darshan Lal vs Khadi and Village Industries Commission and Others

Dev Darshan Sood, J.—The petitioner, who was an employee of the first respondent, prays that order dated 15.7.2013, Annexure P-6, be quashed and set aside. This order has been passed by the Director of Bio Technology, Khadi & Village Industries Commission pursuant to the order passed in CWP No. 2258 of 2013 rejecting the request of the petitioner for increasing his suspension allowance from 50 % to 75 % and to set aside his suspension. Prior to the institution of the present case, CWP No. 2258 of 2013 was instituted by the petitioner herein challenging his suspension, which was disposed of by a short order on 11th June, 2013 on the ground that the representation of the petitioner, subject matter of that writ petition, addressed to the Director, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Shimla should be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the day when the order was passed which was 11.6.2013. It is pursuant to this order that Annexure P-6 was recorded which is impugned in this petition. Representation of the petitioner states that he was working in the office of the Director KVIC Shimla and has been implicated in a false case by the Vigilance department, Dharamshala in FIR No. 13/09, dated 1.11.2009 u/s 7 & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His plea is that unless there is an order for the extension of suspension, it is deemed to be revoked by its own force. The petitioner was suspended vide Annexure P-2, dated 30.11.2009. He was deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from 1.11.2009 in accordance with the Regulation No. 8 of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation, 2003. His headquarter was fixed in Shimla and he was directed to be paid subsistence allowance at 50% of his basic pay and allowance as admissible to the employees of the Commission.

We now advert to the order, Annexure P-6, it only reproduce part of the Rule 5(a) of the KVIC E CCA Regulation 2003 Part IV 8 and states that he was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification and criminal proceedings are in progress under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In these circumstances, his suspension cannot be revoked. Notice of the petitioner was issued to the respondents but nobody appeared on their behalf. We have gone through the Clause 8(2)(c) of the disciplinary Rules which reads:

An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this regulation may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate.

We find that the respondents have not acted in consonance with the law. Criminal proceedings cannot be stretched interminably. If, the power of suspension is there and an employee is placed under suspension that requires periodical review. We do not find that there is a clause akin to clause 10 of the CCS & CCA Rules which provides an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under the rule shall be reviewed by the Authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension and sub rule 7 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under the rule aforesaid shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review. But nonetheless the situation as we find now is that the order was passed in the year 2009 and is not being reviewed by the authority solely on the ground that the petitioner is charged for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act which seriously prejudices the case of the Industry. We also place on record our displeasure in the manner the notice issued by this Court has been disobeyed by the respondents. We also cannot appreciate as to how case registered in the year 2009 is continuing till now for a period of more than 5 years and why the prosecution is dragging its feet and not concluding the proceedings at an early date. We would have revoked the suspension at our own but in any event since we have not received any assistance from the respondents, the only order which can be passed is that the allowance paid to the petitioner shall be increased to 75 % forthwith. Ordered accordingly. Writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to the costs. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.