State of Maharashtra and Ors vs Jawahar Singh and Others

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—This writ petition which has been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and other petitioners is directed against the order dated 26.4.2012 in OA No.3874/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal allowed the original application of the respondent no.1 (Jawahar Singh) whereby he had challenged the suspension order. The respondent No.1 had invoked the provisions of Rule 3(1B) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which reads as under:-

1(B) The period of suspension of a member of the Service on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year and the inquiry shall be completed and appropriate order shall be issued within one year from the date of suspension failing which the suspension order shall automatically stand revoked:

Provided that the suspension can be continued beyond

one year only on the recommendations of the Central

Ministry''s Review Committee.

Provided further that the period during which the disciplinary proceedings remain stayed due to orders of a Court of law, shall be excluded from this limit of one year."

The respondent No.1, who was with the Indian Police Service and from the Maharashtra Cadre was posted as Inspector General (Prisons), Central Region, Aurangabad. Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the respondent No.1 concerning inter alia the charge that he had unauthorizedly shifted 21 convicts from Nasik Jail to Aurangabad Central Prison and also that he held a press conference contrary to the directions given by the higher authorities. In this matter we are however, not concerned with the charge memo of the disciplinary proceedings which are pending against him nor are we concerned with the original application being OA No.3626/2011, which is pending before the Tribunal, in which the respondent No.1 has challenged the memorandum of charges dated 06.06.2011. The present case is only concerned with the suspension order which had been served upon the respondent No.1 in view of the fact that the departmental proceedings had been initiated. The respondent No.1 had been suspended w.e.f. 25.04.2011.

It was the case of the respondent No.1 that the suspension order could not be continued for more than one year in view of the specific and mandatory provisions contained in the said Rule 3(1B). It was pointed out that the case against the respondent No.1 was not connected with any corruption and, therefore, as per the said Rule, the suspension could not exceed one year and that the inquiry should also have been completed within one year from the date of the suspension. In case that did not happen, the suspension would automatically be revoked, in view of the specific and mandatory provisions of the said Rule.

The Tribunal, applying the said Rule, held that since the inquiry had not been concluded within the mandatory period of one year, the suspension of respondent No.1 automatically come to an end on 24.04.2012 and he would be deemed to have been reinstated in service w.e.f. 25.04.2012. The Tribunal also directed the petitioner to accordingly issue necessary orders at the earliest. Certain other comments were made with regard to withdrawal of the second prayer in the OA and liberty being granted to the respondent No.1 to challenge the orders dated 25.04.2011, 22.07.2011, 05.10.2011 and 19.01.2012 in the pending OA 3626/2011 in which the petitioner had challenged the memorandum of charges.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in passing the direction that the suspension period had automatically come to an end on 24.04.2012 and that the respondent No.1 was deemed to have been reinstated w.e.f. 25.04.2012. He submitted that the Tribunal ignored the proviso to the said Rule which permitted the continuance of the period of suspension even beyond the period of one year on the recommendations of the Central Ministry''s Review Committee. However, on a pointed question as to whether the Central Ministry''s Review Committee had in fact continued the period of suspension on or before 24.04.2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this was not so. He submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to seek the extension of the suspension period from the Central Ministry''s Review Committee. We find that this argument is untenable because of the fact that any extension of the suspension period had to be sought and granted prior to the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the said officer was suspended. If that did not happen, the suspension would automatically come to an end on the date on which the period of one year expired. In this case, the period of one year expired on 24.04.2012.

As such, the Tribunal has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the suspension period of the respondent No.1 came to an end automatically on 24.04.2012 in view of Rule 3(1B). Consequently, the Tribunal was also right in stating that the respondent No.1 was deemed to have been reinstated w.e.f. 25.04.2.012. In this case, the facts indicate that the proviso was not at all triggered and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot take advantage of the proviso when in fact there was no recommendation of the Central Ministry''s Review Committee for extending the period of suspension beyond the period of one year. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.