Rajiv Kumar Khanna vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

The applicant, at the relevant point of time, was working as Grade-I (DASS) Tehsildar Kanjhawla when he was placed under suspension vide Annex.A-1 dated 5.4.2018 contemplating under disciplinary action against him. The suspension period was extended for a further period of 180 days from 04.07.2018 vide Annex. A-2 dated. 29.06.2018. No charge memo has been issued to the applicant so far.

Through medium of this OA, the applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents for quashment of impugned order Annex. A-1 & A-2 orders.

Ms. Sarita Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted that no charge memo has been issued to the applicant so far. She further submitted that delay in issuance of charge memo has occurred due to some internal correspondence within the offices of the respondents.

From the documents placed on records as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that applicant has not been issued any charge memo so far. As per mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 1912/2015 decided on 16.02.2015, if charge memo is not issued within 90 days from the date of the suspension order, the suspended govt. official would be entitled for reinstatement in service. Hence, we direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The respondents, however, shall have liberty to proceed against the applicant in departmental proceedings in accordance with the law. The period of suspension shall be dealt with by the respondents under Rules FR 54 -B in the due course.

The OA is, accordingly, stands allowed. No order as to costs.