Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Mangal Singh Arya vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited on 24 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2898/2010 New Delhi, this the 24th day of March 2011 Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Honble Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Shri Mangal Singh Arya s/o late Shri Jaghar Singh Senior SDE (GO-18716) R/o C-30/2, Street No.1, Khazuri Khas Delhi-94 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri K P Gupta) Versus 1. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited 12th Floor Jeevan Bharti Tower 1 Connaught Circus New Delhi-1 Through its Chairman and Managing Director 2. The Director Technical Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Corporate Office 12th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Tower 1 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-1 3. Executive Director Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Janpath New Delhi-50 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri H K Gangwani) O R D E R
Shri A.K. Bhardwaj:
The applicant has filed the captioned OA, making the following prayers:
8.1 To revoke the suspension of the applicant immediately; and 8.2 To enhance the subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% of basic pay and other admissible allowance with effect from 04.05.2009 and to pay the arrears; 8.3 Award the cost for the present application; and 8.4 Any other or further relief, which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the applicant and against the respondent may please be awarded.
2. Briefly stating, FIR bearing No.RC-DAI-2009-A-2007 dated 3.2.2009 was registered against the applicant and he was arrested by the police. The applicant was booked under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was admitted to bail vide order dated 4.4.2009 and was consequently released from custody. As is stated by the applicant in his OA, the investigation report was filed in the Court on 1.7.2009 and the Special Judge (under PC Act), CBI, Delhi framed the charges. On account of his arrest and continuance in custody for a period beyond 48 hours, the applicant was deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, i.e., 3.2.2009 in terms of sub clause 2 of Rule 20 of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1998 (for short Rules 1998) till further orders. The applicant still continues to be under suspension.
3. The counsel for the applicant contends that he is being kept under suspension since 19.2.2009 effectively from 3.2.2009, i.e., for unreasonably prolonging period. Referring to Rule 7 (b) of Rules 1998, the counsel for the applicant contends that if the employee has been under suspension for one year without any charges being filed in the Court of Law, it would cause undue hardship to him. No other contention is raised by the counsel for the applicant while assailing the continuance of suspension.
4. Next contention raised by the counsel for the applicant is regarding enhancement of subsistence allowance. Referring to Rule 21 (2) of the Rules 1998, the counsel for the applicant contends that where the period of suspension exceeds 90 days, the authority which made the suspension order, should vary the amount of subsistence allowance for the period subsequent to the period of the first 90 days and the subsistence allowance should have been increased to 75% of basic pay and allowances thereon.
5. Opposing the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant, Shri H.K. Gangwani, counsel for the respondents submits that the allegations against the applicant in the criminal case are grave and serious. Referring to the complaint made against the applicant, the counsel contends that the applicant raised a demand of Rs.50,000/- for release of amount of Rs.1,52,858/- of a company lying with the MTNL. On the issue of subsistence allowance, the counsel for the respondents refers to Rule 21 (3) of the Rules 1998, which stipulates that if an employee is arrested by the police on a criminal charge and bail is not granted, no subsistence allowance is payable. The said rule provides that on grant of bail, if the competent authority decides to continue the suspension, the employee shall be entitled to subsistence allowance from the date he is granted bail. The counsel for the respondents further contends that the subsistence allowance payable to the applicant was enhanced by the respondents vide order dated 26.6.2010.
6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. As far as the reliance placed by the applicant on Rule 7 (b) of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1998 is concerned, the said rule itself provides that the suspension for one year would cause hardship only when the same is continued without any charges being filed in the Court of Law. In the present case, as per applicants own admission, the charge sheet has been filed against him in the Court. The said rule also provides that in case the employee is accused of serious crime, the Review Committee may recommend continuation of suspension of the employee concerned. In the present case, the applicant is accused of an offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which, of course, is a serious crime. Thus, the contention of the applicant that in terms of Rule 7 (b) of the Rules 1998 his suspension is liable to be revoked cannot be accepted.
8. As far as the contention of the applicant regarding enhancement of subsistence allowance is concerned, he is right in contending that on suspension period being in excess of 90 days the authority, which made the suspension order, should have varied his subsistence allowance and should have increased the same to 75%, in case of prolonging of suspension was not directly attributable to the applicant. The contention of the applicant that no subsistence allowance was payable to the applicant till he was granted bail is out of context to the issue of enhancement of subsistence allowance. In the present case, it is not so that the applicant is not granted subsistence allowance and he is claiming the same.
9. The issue to be determined is that when the applicant is granted bail as well as the subsistence allowance, whether on expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension, his subsistence allowance should have been varied to 75% of basic pay and allowances or not?
10. However, in the present case, the counsel for the applicant submits that his client would be satisfied if his subsistence allowance is varied from expiry of three months from the date of grant of bail, i.e., 4.4.2009. We find no reason to reject such contention and submission made by the counsel for the applicant.
11. The reliance placed by the counsel for the applicant on the decision of this Tribunal in H.S. Ramakrishna v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & another, 2002 (3) AISLJ 440 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the said decision is with reference to an employee of Central Excise (Training), whose suspension was regulated by Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, whereas in the present case, the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited have its own rules to regulate the suspension of its employees.
12. For the aforementioned reasoned, we decline to interfere with the order of suspension of the applicant and continuance of his suspension. However, on the issue of enhancement of subsistence allowance, we direct the respondents to enhance the subsistence allowance of the applicant from the expiry of three months from 4.4.2009, i.e., the date when he was granted bail in RC No.7/2009.
12. OA disposed of. No costs.
( A.K. Bhardwaj ) ( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) Member (J) Member (A) /sunil/