Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 210 (CAL)

. v. .

2015-03-04

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, SUDIP AHLUWALIA

body2015
JUDGMENT:- This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 8th December, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in Original Application No. 245 of 2011 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the said original application on merits. The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities extended the suspension of the petitioner on 16th July, 2009 in clear violation of sub-rule 7 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service Rules. From the records, we find that the petitioner herein was placed under suspension by the order dated 26.02.2009 with effect from the date of detention of the said petitioner i.e. on 28.12.2008 until further orders. The order of suspension was thereafter reviewed and by the order dated 16th July, 2009, the said petitioner was informed that the order of suspension issued earlier has been extended for a further period of 180 days. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was detained in custody on 28.12.2008 and was released on 02.03.2009. The C.B.I. authorities by the letter dated 15th May, 2009 informed the concerned authority of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) about the release of the said petitioner from detention and the said letter of C.B.I. was received by the concerned authority of the Department on 20th May, 2009. Thereafter the Reviewing Committee considered the matter and extended the suspension of the petitioner for a further period of 180 days. The learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the 90 days period for review of suspension of the petitioner should be counted from the date of service of the letter of suspension on the petitioner since the said letter of suspension dated 26th February, 2009 was served on the petitioner at his residence which impliedly established the fact that the petitioner was released from detention otherwise the order of suspension could not have been served on the petitioner at his residence. The 90 days period in terms of the proviso to sub-rule 7 of Rule 10 should be counted from the date of the release of the government servant from detention or the date on which the fact of the release of the government servant from detention is intimated to the concerned authority whichever is later. The 90 days period in terms of the proviso to sub-rule 7 of Rule 10 should be counted from the date of the release of the government servant from detention or the date on which the fact of the release of the government servant from detention is intimated to the concerned authority whichever is later. The aforesaid sub-rule 7 together with proviso is set out hereunder; “(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 suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days’ period in such case will count from the date of 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.” In terms of proviso to sub-rule 7, the date on which the government servant was released from detention should be intimated to the appointing authority. Admittedly, the petitioner did not inform the appointing authority about his release from detention. Furthermore, the release of the petitioner from detention was intimated by the C.B.I. to the appointing authority by the letter dated 15th May, 2009 which was received by the said authority on 20th May, 2009. In terms of the aforesaid proviso to sub-rule 7, the date of the intimation regarding release of the government servant from detention is very much important since the date on which the fact of release of the government servant from detention is intimated to the appointing authority should be taken into consideration while computing the period of 90 days for the purpose of reviewing the suspension order. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly did not inform the appointing authority about his release from detention. Therefore, the most important consideration is when the intimation was given to the appointing authority about the release of the said petitioner from detention. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly did not inform the appointing authority about his release from detention. Therefore, the most important consideration is when the intimation was given to the appointing authority about the release of the said petitioner from detention. The C.B.I. authorities by the letter dated 15th May, 2009 informed the appointing authority about the release of the said petitioner on bail which was received by the concerned authority on 20th May, 2009 and, therefore, the concerned authority within the prescribed time limit exercised power and extended the period of suspension after review. The Rules do not provide that the appointing authority will acquire knowledge on its own. In terms of the proviso to sub-rule 7, the appointing authority should be intimated about the release of the government servant from detention. In the present case, therefore, it cannot be said that the appointing authority had the knowledge about the release of the petitioner from detention before the said authority was intimated by the C.B.I. by the letter dated 15th May, 2009 which was received on behalf of the appointing authority on 20th May, 2009. The learned Tribunal in our opinion, has rightly decided the issues raised before it while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. We, therefore, do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal and dispose of this writ petition without awarding any costs.