Court quashes suspension order, emphasizes periodic review, and principles of natural justice.

The court quashed the suspension order dated 14th December 2017 and subsequent orders dated 18th May 2018 and 15th June 2018, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner. Emphasizing the need for periodic review of suspension and adherence to principles of natural justice, the court aligned with the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI. The respondent was instructed to decide on the treatment of the suspension period and communicate the decision within six months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the suspension order dated 14th December 2017.
2. Validity of the orders dated 18th May 2018 and 15th June 2018 rejecting the petitioner’s representations for revocation of suspension.
3. Applicability of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules) and the Supreme Court judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI to the case.
4. Requirement and legality of periodic review of suspension under Rule 20(3) of the NTPC (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977 (CDA Rules).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Suspension Order Dated 14th December 2017:
The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 14th December 2017, invoking Rule 20(1)(c) of the NTPC CDA Rules, which allows suspension where a case against the employee in respect of any criminal offense is under investigation or trial. The suspension was triggered by an FIR filed by the CBI against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging receipt of illegal gratification and other offenses. The petitioner contended that no incriminating evidence was found during the CBI investigation, no charge-sheet was filed, and no departmental inquiry was initiated, making the suspension unjustifiable.

2. Validity of the Orders Dated 18th May 2018 and 15th June 2018:
The orders dated 18th May 2018 and 15th June 2018 rejected the petitioner’s representations for revocation of his suspension. The Ministry of Power justified the suspension under Rule 20(1)(c) of the CDA Rules, asserting that the petitioner held a sensitive post and could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if reinstated. The Ministry also argued that the CCS (CCA) Rules were not applicable to the petitioner, as he was governed by the NTPC CDA Rules, which allowed suspension without a charge-sheet for six months.

3. Applicability of the CCS (CCA) Rules and Ajay Kumar Choudhary Judgment:
The petitioner relied on Rule 10(6) and (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the Supreme Court judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI, which held that suspension could not continue beyond three months without serving a charge-sheet. The petitioner argued that the NTPC CDA Rules should be interpreted in light of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the Ajay Kumar Choudhary judgment, asserting that his suspension should be revoked due to the absence of a charge-sheet within the stipulated period.

4. Requirement and Legality of Periodic Review of Suspension:
Rule 20(3) of the NTPC CDA Rules mandates a six-monthly review of suspension by the competent authority. The petitioner argued that no such review was conducted by the Hon’ble President of India, who was the competent authority in his case. The file noting dated 7th June 2018, relied upon by the respondent, was deemed insufficient as it was not an order by the Hon’ble President of India. The court highlighted the necessity of timely review and communication of the decision to the employee, emphasizing that indefinite suspension without review is impermissible.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the suspension order dated 14th December 2017 and the subsequent orders dated 18th May 2018 and 15th June 2018, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner. The court emphasized the requirement for periodic review of suspension and adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, aligning with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. UOI. The respondent was also directed to decide on the treatment of the suspension period and communicate the decision within six months.

---