Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kali Charan Sabat vs U.O.I. Through 1. National Institute Of ... on 8 May, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 9376 of 2023
(DR. KALI CHARAN SABAT Vs U.O.I. THROUGH 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY THROUGH
ITS JOINT SECRETARY AND OTHERS)
Dated : 08-05-2023
Shri Arun Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav - Assistant Solicitor General for
respondent/Union of India.
Counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission and also on interim relief.
Counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is questioning validity of the order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P/2) whereby the order of suspension passed by the authority on 30.12.2022 has been extended for a further period of 180 days. The order is being assailed mainly on two counts. Firstly that the order of extension has not been passed by the competent authority by adopting due procedure as has been prescribed under rule 10 of Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules, 1965) and secondly, while passing the order extending the period of suspension, no reason has been assigned by the authority. He further submits that in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and another (2015) 7 SCC 291, if order of suspension is being extended by the competent authority, then reason must be assigned for extension of the same. Relying upon sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of CCA Rules, 1965, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of suspension can be modified or revoked only on a recommendation made by the Review Committee. He has submitted Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 5/10/2023 11:45:38 AM 2 that in the present case, since there is no such recommendation of the Review Committee nor the matter has ever been referred to the Review Committee, therefore, the order of extension is illegal, contrary to law and liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, Shri Yadav has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that extension has been made by adopting proper procedure and as such, there is no defect in the same which warrants any interference by this Court. He has further submitted that the case of the Supreme Court on which counsel for the petitioner is placing reliance is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties; perusal of order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P/2) which is impugned in this petition and the respective provisions i.e. sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of CCA Rules, 1965, I am of the opinion that it does not deal with the situation as exists in this case. In the present case, the order of suspension has been extended and that requirement is dealt with sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of of CCA Rules, 1965 which reads as under:-
"10(7). An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.
Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub- rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 5/10/2023 11:45:38 AM 3 suspension and the ninety days' period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later."
Therefore, the submission made by counsel for the petitioner has no substance. As far as submission made by counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) saying that authority while extending the order of suspension did not assign any specific reason and, therefore, that order is vitiated and deserves to be set aside is concerned, I am not satisfied with the submission made by counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the Supreme Court dealing with the provisions of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and considering the fact that proviso to Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. postulates personal freedom and accrues right in favour of the detenue to be released from detention if charge-sheet is not filed within 90 days. The Supreme Court has also considered the aspect that human dignity and right to a speedy trial is also required to be considered in respect of the detenue. However, in my opinion, the said obligation is not mandatory and does not make the order vitiated because nowhere it is prescribed that even after filing the charge-sheet and issued the same within time, order of suspension cannot be extended. Under such a circumstance, order of suspension at this stage is not required to be quashed. The part of the grievance in respect of the order of suspension in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be entertained at this stage.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 5/10/2023 11:45:38 AM 4With regard to other relief claimed in the petition, Shri Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State is granted four weeks time to file reply.
List after four weeks.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 5/10/2023 11:45:38 AM