Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1457 (GAU)

Brijesh Kumar Rai v. Union of India

2018-09-28

M.R.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER : M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.P. Kakati, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 representing IIT, Guwahati. 2. The petitioner submitted that he is against the impugned extension of his suspension order under Ref: AD/LM/447/BKR/17/35 dated 05.09.2018 passed by the respondent IIT, Guwahati through the Registrar and Secretary to the Board of Governors of said IIT, Annexure LV to his Additional Affidavit. 3. The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the review of suspension of the petitioner made by the respondent IIT, Guwahati dated 05.09.2019 was beyond the outer time limit fixed for the said purpose or not. 4. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering in IIT, Guwahati. By order dated 07.12.2017 he was placed under suspension and since then he is under continuous suspension. 5. Relevant record of impugned suspension of the petitioner has been placed before the Court. Mr. Kakati, learned senior counsel from the record submits that as per the decision of the Board of Governors dated 2.12.2017, the Registrar and Secretary, BOG, IIT, Guwahati by the impugned order dated 7.12.2017 suspended the petitioner from service with the observation that he shall not leave the Headquarters without obtaining prior permission of the Director and that during the period of suspension, he shall be allowed to draw the subsistence allowance and shall be paid all other admissible benefits as per the rules. 6. After the initial suspension of the petitioner on 7.12.2017, the respondent IIT Guwahati for the first time on 6.3.2018 reviewed the suspension of the petitioner well within the outer limit of 90 days as provided under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The second review of the suspension of the petitioner was made on 05.06.2018 and by the impugned Office Order No. AD/LM447/BKR/17/1431 dated 05.06.2018 passed by the Registrar and Secretary, BOG, IIT, Guwahati extended the suspension of the petitioner for a further period of 3 (three) months or until further notice, whichever is earlier observing that the previous suspension of the petitioner dated 06.03.2018 shall continue. Thereafter, the respondent IIT, Guwahati on 05.09.2018 reviewed the suspension of the petitioner for another 90 (ninety) days or until further order, whichever is earlier. 7. Thereafter, the respondent IIT, Guwahati on 05.09.2018 reviewed the suspension of the petitioner for another 90 (ninety) days or until further order, whichever is earlier. 7. Petitioner submits that the impugned review order dated 05.09.2018 of his suspension is beyond the period of 90 (ninety) days and as such, as per the provisions of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules as well as the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of IIT Guwahati Vs. Aloke Kumar Ghosal & Anr. reported in 2017 (5) GLT 132 cannot sustain and needs to be set aside and quashed. 8. Mr. Kakati, learned senior counsel for the respondent IIT, Guwahati submitted that after the first review of suspension within 90 (ninety) days, the subsequent review of suspension, as per the provisions of sub-Rule (6) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, is required to be made before the expiry of the extended period of suspension and the minimum extension of suspension is for a period of 180 days at a time. 9. He further submitted that sub-Rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules is an independent one, which provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-Rule (1) or (2) of said rule shall not be valid after a period of 90 (ninety) days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of 90 (ninety) days. 10. Mr. Kakati, submitted that in the present case, by the previous review order of suspension dated 05.06.2018 petitioner's suspension was extended for a further period of 3 (three) months or until further notice, whichever is earlier and said 3 (three) months after 5.6.2018 had come to an end only on 5.9.2018 and therefore, he stated that no such wrong has been committed by the respondent IIT, Guwahati in reviewing the suspension of the petitioner on 05.09.2018, on completion of 3 (three) months in terms of the previous order dated 05.06.2018. 11. From the reading of the provision of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules one can see that it stipulates 90 days and 180 days and but, not in moths. 12. 11. From the reading of the provision of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules one can see that it stipulates 90 days and 180 days and but, not in moths. 12. Though the IIT, Guwahati in its previous order of review of suspension of the petitioner dated 05.06.2018 extended the suspension of the petitioner for a another period of 3 (three) months or until further notice, whichever is earlier, but the suspension of the petitioner was done as per the statute of the IIT, Guwahati which is in conformity with the CCS (CCA) Rules and one has to read it only in days i.e., 90 days and 180 days and not in months. 13. It is seen from the records that the previous review of suspension of the petitioner was made by the respondent IIT on 05th of June, 2018 and it reviewed the same again on 05th September, 2018 and by that time, the period of 90 (ninety) days had already expired. The impugned review of suspension of the petitioner was done on the 93rd day on 05.09.2018 from the previous review that was made on 05.06.2018. 14. Therefore, the impugned review of suspension of the petitioner being made by the respondent IIT, Guwahati vide Ref: AD/LM/447/BKR/17/35 dated 05.09.2018 after the expiry of 90 days, is bad in law as it is not in conformity with the Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the Statute of the IIT and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. Writ petition stands disposed of.