Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 374 (GAU)

Ravi Tachang S/o Rapik Tachang v. State of A. P.

2022-04-06

A.M.BUJOR BARUA

body2022
JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents being Chief Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh, Secretary, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. We have taken note of that the respondent No. 2 being the Secretary, Land Management Department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has its own standing counsel, but when the matter is taken up, it is stated that the learned counsel is having some inconvenience today and therefore, cannot appear before the Court. 2. Non appearance of a standing counsel, should not detain the Court from proceeding ahead with a matter, if otherwise in the facts and circumstances, the matter requires to be proceeded with. This being a matter against an order of suspension, where the order of suspension may not be having its force at present, we are of the view that the circumstance of the case does not warrant an adjournment on the inconvenience of the learned standing counsel. Accordingly, we require Mr. D. Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, who is otherwise a Government Advocate in default for any department to appear even for the respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner, who is a Supervisor Kanungoe in the Land Management Department, was placed under suspension as per the order dated 25.06.2021 of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The order of suspension reveals that the petitioner was in custody in connection with SIC (VIG) PS Case No. 20/2020 u/s 120B/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as he was in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension as per the provision of section 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (in short CCS CCA). 4. Although the order of suspension states that it was until further orders, but irrespective of what has been provided in the order of suspension and it being a deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) of the CCS CCA Rules, we have to understand the validity period of the order of suspension has to be as provided under Rule 10 of the CCS CCA Rules. 5. 5. Rule 10(6) of the CCS CCA Rules inter-alia requires that before the expiry of three months of an order of suspension, there is a requirement of a review by the Review Committee on the question as to whether the suspension is required to be extended any further and if yes, it should not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time. 6. Rule 10(7) of the CCS CCA Rules further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 (1) or 10(2) of the Rules shall not be valid after a period of 90 days, unless it is extended after review for further period before the expiry of 90 days. 7. In other words, there is a requirement of the Rules that in the event, the authorities intends to extend the suspension, the same be extended prior to the expiry of 90 days from the date of the suspension. 8. In the instant case, we have noticed that whereas the order of suspension is dated 28.06.2021, there is an order of extention by the authorities which is dated 03.03.2022. As per the provisions of Rule 10 (7) of the CCS CCA Rules, the order of suspension which is dated 28.06.2021 lost its force on 28.09.2021 on the expiry of 90 days. In other words, from 28.09.2021, the order of suspension against the petitioner was not in force and neither it was a valid order of suspension any further. 9. In the circumstance, a question for decision had arisen as to whether by extending the said order by a subsequent order of 03.03.2022, the original order of suspension can be revived and be extended any further. 10. In this respect, reference is made to the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.01.2011 in W.A. No. 262/2007, wherein a proposition of law had been laid down that in the event the validity of an order is not extended before its expiry, the order ceases to have its effect and after the order ceases to have its effect, it cannot be extended any further by any other subsequent order. 11. In the instant case, it is noticed that the order of suspension dated 28.06.2021ceased to have its effect from 28.09.2021. Therefore, the said order could not have been revived and extended by another subsequent order dated 03.03.2022. 12. 11. In the instant case, it is noticed that the order of suspension dated 28.06.2021ceased to have its effect from 28.09.2021. Therefore, the said order could not have been revived and extended by another subsequent order dated 03.03.2022. 12. In view of the above, as per the operation of law under Rule 10(7) of the CCS CCA Rules, it has to be understood that the order of suspension against the petitioner is no longer having its force after 28.09.2021. Accordingly, the respondents may act in respect of the petitioner by taking note that from 28.09.2021, there is no order of suspension in force against the petitioner and treat the petitioner accordingly. 13. Accordingly, as the petitioner has to be understood to have not been under suspension from 28.09.2021, all consequential financial and related service benefits thereof be also provided to the petitioner. 14. Writ Petition stands allowed as indicated above.