Takhellambam Bangkabihari Singh vs State Of Manipur

[1] Heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

[2] The present writ petition had been filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Joint Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 11.12.2018 in exercise of power conferred by Rule 10 (2) (a) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.

[3] The facts of the present case in a nutshell is that while the petitioner was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police/SIT in the Manipur Police Department, he was arrested on 11.12.2018 and detained in Police Custody in connection with FIR No. 71(10) 2018 NAB-PS u/s 21(c)/29/60(3) ND&PS Act. On receiving the information about his detention in Police Custody, the Joint Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, issued an order dated 28.01.2019 placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 11.12.2018 in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.

[4] Later on, by an order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur in Cril. Misc.(B) Case No. 177 of 2019, the petitioner was released on bail from Judicial Custody.

[5] As the petitioner was placed under suspension for about 9(nine) months, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition praying for quashing the impugned suspension order and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and also to pay his accrued subsistence allowance within a stipulated period.

[6] The ground taken by the petitioner in assailing the suspension order is that as the period of suspension of the petitioner had crossed the period of 90 days, the impugned suspension order shall be deemed to be not valid as provided under Rule 10(7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. It has been further asserted by the writ petitioner that during the period of suspension, no subsistence allowance was paid to him by the authorities as provided under FR 53 of the FR & SR.

[7] The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner by contending that a Review Committee meeting was held on 03.10.2019 and after considering the case of the petitioner, the Review Committee recommended for extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner for a period of 180 days w.e.f. 03.10.2019. It has also been contended by the respondents that the Department of Personnel has already sanctioned the subsistence allowances of the petitioner by an order dated 03.06.2019.

[8] Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner draw the attention of this Court to the provisions of Rule 10(6) and (7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 which reads as under:-

"(6). 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.

"(7). An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.

Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub- rule(2), if the Government servant continues to be under detention at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days' period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later."

By referring to the provisions of Rules 10(6) and (7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules as quoted herein above, it has been submitted by the learned Senior counsel that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of Rule 10 shall not be valid  after a period of 90(ninety days) unless it is extended for further period before expiry of 90(ninety days) as prescribed under sub-rule (6) of Rule

It has also been submitted that the period of suspension can be extended only on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted  for the purpose and that the period of extension cannot exceed 180 (One hundred and eighty) days at a time as mandated under Rule 10(6) of the CCS(CCA) Rules.

[9] The learned counsel vehemently submitted that in the present case after the recommendation made by the Review Committee in its meeting held on 03.10.2019 for extending the period of suspension of the petitioner for 180 days w.e.f. the date of holding the said meeting, no further steps had been taken up by the authorities for extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner and the respondents have also not issued any order extending the period of suspension of the petitioner.

In view of the above, it has been contended that the impugned suspension order is no longer valid in the eye of law and accordingly, the impugned suspension order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

[10] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that as per instructions provided by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur, under his letter dated 16.03.2021, the period of suspension of the petitioner was again extended as recommended by the Review Committee in its meeting held on 02.06.2020 for a further period of 180 days w.e.f. 09.06.2020 by an order dated 09.06.2020 and the said period of 180 days expired on 15.12.2020. Thereafter, no review was taken up before the expiry of the said 180 days period and no further order has been issued by the Government extending the period of suspension of the petitioner. A copy of the letter dated 16.03.2021 of the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur is placed on record and marked as 'X' for identification.

[11] After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.12.2018 by an order dated 28.01.2019 thereafter, on the recommendation of the Review Committee in its meetings held on 03.10.2019 and 02.06.2020, the period of suspension of the petitioner was extended twice for a period of 180 days each w.e.f. 09.10.2019 and 09.06.2020 and the last period of extension expired on 15.12.2020. Thereafter, no steps has been taken up by the authorities for extending the period of suspension of the petitioner.

[12] As the last extended period of suspension of the petitioner expired on 15.12.2020 and as the authority did not taken up any steps for extending the period of suspension of the petitioner thereafter, this Court is constraints to hold that by operation of law as provided under Rule 10(7) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, the impugned suspension order is no longer valid and the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension any longer.

In view of the above, the impugned suspension order dated 28.01.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated in service forthwith. The respondents are further directed to pay the subsistence allowance due payable to the petitioner within a period of 2(two) months, if such subsistence allowances have not already been paid to the petitioner.

[13] With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

Parties are to bear their own costs.