2020 (8) TMI 433 - HC - Indian Laws

Tribunal Quashes Suspension Extension, High Court Upholds Decision on Officer Reinstatement

The Tribunal quashed the orders extending suspensions beyond 90 days, directing officers' reinstatement. High Court upheld the quashment but clarified ... Extension of period of suspension for further 180 days - alleged import of overvalued diamonds - approval under section 17(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT:- The order of extension of suspension of the petitioner as at (A) dated 19.07.2019 which was assailed in the Original Application before the Tribunal reveals that the same has been passed upon acceptance of the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee by the with the Disciplinary Authority - That period having been expired in the meantime, the last order of extension has come on 15.01.2020. On that occasion, the Suspension Review Committee had again recommended for continuance of suspension which has been accepted. The opposite parties have been shifted from their place of posting, where the allegations were leveled. In the absence of any specific material, the likelihood on their part to influence the investigation and tamper with the evidence in the criminal trial is hardly inferable. There are no such indications that even in their present place of posting, the working atmosphere in case of their joining the work in the office is likely to be polluted when the fact remains that the petitioners are at liberty to post them in any such non-sensitive post as deemed proper. After that incident, no further allegation of their misconduct in any way has also been reported - other group B officers, who have also been arraigned in the criminal case arising out of the same incident wherein the opposite party as at (B) is an accused, are all on bail. The CBI has moved for cancellation of bail granted all accused persons. The investigation by CBI is complete in respect of both the set of accused. In case of those officers also, the Review Committee had submitted the recommendation. The case of the opposite party at B rather stands on a better footing than those two protection officers implicated in the case. In that view of the matter, the continuation of suspension of this opposite party as at (B) is apparently discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because thereby equals have been treated unequally - there are no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal that further continuance of suspension of the opposite parties would no more be useful. However as it is found that the challenges were to the order dated 19.07.2019 extending the suspension of the opposite party of (A) with effect from 22.07.2019 and order dated 22.07.2019 extending the suspension of the opposite party at (B) with effect from 24.07.2019; We, accordingly direct that they be not treated to have been under suspension with effect from above said dates and not as has been ordered by the Tribunal as effective from the expiry of the initial period of suspension for 90 days - application allowed in part. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the extension of suspension orders beyond the initial 90 days.2. Justifiability and cogency of reasons for continued suspension.3. Discriminatory treatment among officers facing similar charges.4. Compliance with principles laid down in relevant case law.Detailed Analysis:Legality of the Extension of Suspension Orders Beyond the Initial 90 Days:The Tribunal examined whether the extensions of suspension orders beyond the initial 90 days were lawful under Rule-10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The rule empowers the Competent Authority to extend suspension orders, but such extensions must be based on cogent and justifiable reasons. The Tribunal found that the extensions lacked sufficient reasoning and were not justified, leading to their quashment.Justifiability and Cogency of Reasons for Continued Suspension:The Tribunal noted that the reasons provided for the extensions were inadequate. For instance, in one case, the suspension was extended due to ongoing investigations and pending disciplinary proceedings, but no charge memo had been issued even after a significant period. In another case, the suspension was extended despite the completion of investigations and filing of charge sheets. The Tribunal emphasized that the object of suspension is to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, which was not a concern here due to the officers' transfers to different locations.Discriminatory Treatment Among Officers Facing Similar Charges:The Tribunal highlighted discriminatory treatment in the case of one officer who remained under suspension while two other officers facing similar charges were reinstated. This unequal treatment was found to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.Compliance with Principles Laid Down in Relevant Case Law:The Tribunal and the High Court referred to the principles established in the Supreme Court case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India, which mandates that suspension should not extend beyond three months if no charge memo is served. The Tribunal found that the continued suspensions in these cases did not comply with this principle, as the extensions were routine and lacked substantial justification.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the orders extending the suspensions beyond the initial 90 days, directing the reinstatement of the officers. The High Court, while modifying the Tribunal's order, upheld the quashment but specified that the officers should not be treated as under suspension from the dates of the contested orders, rather than from the expiry of the initial 90-day period. The authorities were directed to decide on the treatment of the suspension period and the officers' entitlements in accordance with the relevant rules.