Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
(By Advocate: Shri B.S.Mainee And Mrs. ... vs Union Of India on 19 June, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.1653/2009
New Delhi this the 19th day of June,2009
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
Shri Harvinder Singh Bawa,
S/o Late Sh. Kushal Singh,
Inspector Central Excise,
Working under Commissioner of
Central Excise Delhi-IV,
Faridabad (Haryana)
(By Advocate: Shri B.S.Mainee and Mrs. Meenu Mainee)
.... Applicant
VERSUS
Union of India, through
Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi
Additional Commissioner (P&V),
Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise
Delhi-I, C.R. Building,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi
Respondents
O R D E R (ORAL)
This application is directed against the order No.VIII ( I & V)26/21/98/2096 dated 05.09.2008 as at Annexure A-1, passed by Additional Commissioner (P & V) Office of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1 whereby the applicant has been placed under deemed suspension from the date of his conviction i.e. 28.02.2007 by Respondent No.2 in terms of Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules,1965. He would also remain under suspension until further orders.
2. The grievance of the applicant is that he has been placed under suspension from retrospective effect i.e. 28.02.2007 although during the entire period commencing from the date of suspension upto the date of passing of order, he has been performing his duties and functions and drawing his pay and allowances in accordance with rules and was never suspended even after the criminal case came to an end and the trial Court had convicted him vide judgment dated 28.02.2007. The applicant had filed an appeal, being Criminal Appeal N0.345/2007 against his conviction in the Honble High Court of Delhi which had been admitted by the High Court and the suspension of sentence granted by the Special Judge was allowed to continue to operate till the pendency of the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon an order dated 29.04.2009 in OA No.1257/2008 in the matter of Mr. Kewal Krishan Loona, a colleague of the applicant who was similarily convicted and sentenced and during the pendency of the appeal his sentence was suspended by the High Court and Mr. Loona continued to perform his duties but subsequently an order of deemed suspension with retrospective effect was passed, as has been done in the present case. The said OA was allowed and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. Thereupon the respondents allowed Mr. Loona to join duties. The applicant sought parity with Mr. Loona and made representation to this effect on 25.5.2009, a copy of which is AnnexureA-6. However, the respondents have not taken any decision on this representation. Thereupon, the applicant filed the present OA seeking quashing of the impugned order on the strength of this Tribunals order dated 29.04.2009 in the case of Kewal Krishan Loona, as referred to above.
4. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider and decide his representation within a stipulated time frame and until such decision is taken, no recovery is made from the applicants salary. After disposal of his representation as aforesaid, the applicant would be at liberty to take further legal recourse, if so advised.
5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case including the copy of the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1257/2008 in the matter of Mr. Kewal Krishan Loona (Supra), I consider it expedient and proper to dispose of this application at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicants representation dated 25.05.2009 (Annexure A-6) as well as the submissions made herein by treating the original application itself as a supplementary representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are further directed not to make any deduction from the applicants salary until final disposal of his representation, as aforesaid. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /usha/