Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dinesh Bishnoi vs Revenue on 1 March, 2023
1
OA No.2518 of 2022
Court No.6 (item No.12)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.2518/2022
Reserved on: 09.2.2023
Pronouncement on: 01 .3. 2023
Hon'ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Dinesh Bishnoi (Aged 30 years)
S/o Sh. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi,
Deputy Commissioner (Under Suspension)
Office of the Chief Commissioner of CGST,
Tiruvanathapuram Zone,
Central Revenue Building,
I.S. Press Road,
Ernakulam -682018.
Kerala State
Currently residing at:
Devi Kripa, Unichira , Thrikkakara
Ernakulam-682022.
Kerala State
e-mail: [email protected].
Applicant.
(Through Advocate: Sh. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty)
Versus
1. Union of India, through
The Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance
North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairperson
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance
North Block,
New Delhi-110001. -Respondents
2
OA No.2518 of 2022
Court No.6 (item No.12)
(Through Advocate: Mr. S.N.Verma)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
The applicant Dinesh Bishnoi has challenged the order dated 18.08.2022 vide which the Competent Authority has extended the suspension period beyond the initial 90 days. The applicant is direct recruit officer of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Services. He was posted as Deputy Commissioner in the office of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Gurgaon. The Competent Authority has placed the present applicant under suspension vide order dated 22.05.2022 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10(i)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. The suspension of the applicant arose because the Competent Authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him based on the report by Chief Commission CGST vide its letter no.
GCCO/VIG/DE/26/2022-VIG- dated 21.05.2022. It has been alleged that Shri Dinesh Bishnoi, Deputy Commissioner has committed irregularities while processing the refunds involving nearly Rs. 30 crores.3 OA No.2518 of 2022
Court No.6 (item No.12) Considering the role placed by the applicant in alleged GST refunds, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.05.2022 with immediate effect. His period of suspension of 90 days expired on 19.08.2022. The Suspension Review Committee considered his case of suspension on 18.08.2022. Keeping in view the gravity and magnitude of the case and allegations of irregularities on the part of the applicant in sanctioning the refund claims, the Suspension Review Committee recommended that the suspension of Shri Dinesh Bishnoi, the applicant, should be continued for a period of further 180 days.
The Disciplinary authority accepted the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee and vide order No. C-11017/04/2022-Ad.V/7923 dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure A-1) extended the suspension for a further period of 180 days w.e.f. 28.08.2022 till 15.02.2023, with no change in subsistence allowance been paid to the applicant. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:-
"8.1. to allow the present Application; 8.2. to quash and set aside the impugned Order of Extension of Suspension dated 4 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) 18.08.2022 [Annexure : A-1] as being bad in law;
8.3. to consequently direct that the period of suspension of the Applicant beyond the initial ninety days, which is 19.08.2022, should be treated as duty for all purposes;
8.4. to Consequently direct the Respondents to pay the Salary and other Allowances for the period Of suspension of the Applicant beyond 19.08.2022 to the Applicant within a prescribed period;
8.5. to grant Compound Interest @ 18% @ per annum, compounded monthly, for the above amount to be paid, from the date it is due to the date it is actually paid;
8.6. to allow exemplary costs of the application; and 8.7. to issue any such and further order/directions this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Notices were issued to the respondents who have filed their counter reply. The applicant has also filed rejoinder to the counter reply filed by the respondents.
3. From the perusal of the grounds of appeal mentioned in the application and pleadings in the counter affidavit by the respondents and the averments made by both parties, the following issues may be framed in the instant case:-
(i) Whether as per the provisions of Rule 10 (i)
(a) of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the competent authority should not extend the period of suspension 5 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) unless a charge sheet has been filed within a period of 90 days in case of disciplinary cases.
(ii) Even if a charge-sheet has been issued to the suspended official whether the suspended period can be extended beyond the 90 days.
(iii) Whether the judgments of the Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India (215 7 SCC -291) has unequivocally taken away the authority of the Competent Authority to extend the suspension period beyond 90 days Mr. Tushar Mohanty, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the provisions in CCA under Rule 10 (1) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Particularly, he drew attention to clause 7 under Rule 10(i) (a) which reads as under:-
"(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) (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"
He further drew attention to the general instructions regarding suspension to the Government instructions , issued in November, 1982:
"(3) Where a Government servant is placed under suspension on the ground of contemplated disciplinary proceeding, the existing instructions provide that every effort would be made to finalize the charges against the Government servant within three months of the date of suspension. If these instructions are strictly adhered to, a Government servant, who is placed under suspension on the ground of contemplated 6 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) disciplinary proceedings will become aware of the reasons for his suspension without much loss of time."
He further averred that even though the suspension may not be considered as a punishment, it does constitute a great hardship to a Government Servant. In fairness to him it is essential to ensure that this period is reduced to the barest minimum. He further drew attention of this Tribunal to Government Instructions vide its order dated 14.9.1978:-
"6. In spite of the instructions referred to above, instances have come to notice in which Government servants continued to be under suspension for unduly long periods. Such unduly long suspension, while putting the employee concerned to undue hardship, involves payment of subsistence allowance without the employee concerned to undue hardship, involves payment of subsistence allowance without the employee performing any useful service to the Government. It is, therefore, impressed on all the authorities concerned that they should scrupulously observe the time-limits laid down in the preceding paragraph and review the cases of suspension to see whether continued suspension in all cases is really necessary. The authorities superior to the Disciplinary Authorities should also give appropriate directions Disciplinary Authorities keeping in view the provisions contained above."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant averred that though 90 days has expired, the respondents have not issued the charge sheet within a period of 90 days. In 7 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) view of provisions contained in the Government Instructions and OM mentioned above, the applicant's suspension period beyond 90 days should be null and void because there was no compelling reason to extend his suspension period beyond the initial 90 days. Hence the impugned order vide which the competent authority has extended the period of suspension beyond 90 days for further 180 days needs to be quashed.
5. The counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held:-
"14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges / Charge-Sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension....."
He further stated that the applicant was under
suspension w.e.f. 22.5.2022. Therefore, the currency of suspension cannot be extended beyond 19.8.2022 as within this period no memorandum of charges has been served upon the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has to be treated as on duty w.e.f. 20.8.2022 8 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India (supra). He further averred that the DOP&T has since issued the memorandum dated 23.8.2016 regarding implementation of the judgment in case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India(supra) case. He specifically drew attention para 2 of the OM dated 23.8.2016, which reads as under:-
"2. In compliance of the above judgment, it has been decided that where a Government servant is placed under suspension, the order of suspension should not extend beyond three months, if within this period the charge-sheet is not served to the charged officer. As such, it should be ensured that the charge sheet is issued before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. As the suspension will lapse in case this time line is not adhered to a close watch needs to be kept at all levels to ensure that charge sheets are issued in time.
6. The counsel for the applicant averred that the respondents have simply ignored this OM issued by the DOP&T and extended the suspension period of the applicant beyond 90 days and for further 180 days vide its impugned order. He has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Shreedharan Kallat vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 640 : 1995 SCC (4) wherein it has 9 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) been held that " but the department is precluded from challenging the interpretation given by the Court."
As the matter regarding extending the suspension period beyond 90 days has been unequivocally decided by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) case, the respondents should not have extended the applicant's suspension period beyond 90 days.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited several other judgments of High Court and the Apex Court as well as the orders of Coordinated Benches of the C.A.T. which have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (supra). He particularly cited the following the Apex Court's / Tribunal's judgments:-
(1). Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, The judgment dated 21.12.2017 of the Tribunal in OA No. 4159/2017.
(2). OA No. 915/2018 decided on 2.4.2018 in Navneet Kumar vs. Union of India &Ors. (3). OA No.1674/2018 decided on 27.4.2018 in Avnish Bansal vs. Union of India &Ors. (4). OANo.1224/2018(Tushar Ranjan Monhanty vs. Union of India) (5). OA No. 1224/2018 by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal on 31.5.2018 (6). The Judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed in W.P.(c) No. 6859 /2018 by the High Court of Delhi in Kulamani Biswal vs. Union of India (7). The judgment dated 21.8.2018 of the 10 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 8427-8428/2018 (Arising out of S.L. P. (Civil) No. 12112-12113 of 2017 in State of Tamil Nandu res. By Secretary to Govt. (Home) vs. Promod Kumar IPS & another. (8). OA No. 617/2019 in the case of Sandeep Yadav decided by the Cuttak Bench of the Tribunal on 31.1.2020 (9). The order dated 31.01.2020 of the Cuttak Bench in OA No.617/2019 and OA No.693/2019 and the decision upheld by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in A Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12859 of 2020 and A special Leave Petition No. 15225/2020 was also filed in the Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide its order dated 18.1.2021.
(10). OA No. 503/2020 decided on 21.1.2022 in the case of Sandeep Jot Singh by the Amedabad Bench.
(11). OA No. 249/2021 decided on 29.3.2022 (Neetu Singh vs. Union of India) (12). The judgment dated 16.9.2019 of Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 4843/2019 (Maneesh Kaushal Chandra Shukla vs. the State of Gujrat) (13). The order dated 3.5.2019 passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 208/2019 ( M.Y.A.Shaikh vs. Union of India & Ors.) (14). The order dated 4.1.2023 of the Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 731/2016.
(15). The order dated 9.1.2023 passed by the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 160/2021 (16). The judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 14.7.1994 in Union of India vs. Tushar Ranjan Monhanty, 1994 Suppl. 1 SCR; 1994 SCC (5) 450 : JT 1994 (4) 397 (17). The judgment dated 17.4.2018 of High Court of Madrass in W.P. (C) No. 20987 of 2014 and W.P.C No. 35035 of 2016 in case of S. Aruchamy vs. Principal Secretary to Government.
(18). The judgment dated 26.7.2017 in WP (C) No. 11 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) 6456 of 2016 of the High Court of Delhi in case of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Vijay Kumar Jha) (19). The judgment dated 7.12.2017 in WP( C ) No. 23665 of 2017 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in case of K. Padmakumar vs. State of Kerala and Others.
(20). The order dated 6.12.2018 of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 2701 of 2018 in Rakesh Chabra vs. New Delhi Municipal Council.
(21). The order dated 14.9.2015 of Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 3200 of 2015.
(22). The judgment dated 25.7.1997 in case of K. Ajit Babu and others vs. Union of India and others, 1997(6) SCC 473.
(23). The order dated 9.4.2010 in OA No. 445 of 2009 of Mumbai Bench (Prahlad Kumar Ajwani vs. Union of India and anothers).
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also further averred that as the applicant has prayed quashing the extension of suspension period vide impugned order dated 18.8.2022, he is entitled for getting full salary as per provisions under FR 56. He has further pleaded that because of the delayed payment and as no charge sheet has been issued to the applicant within a period of 90 days, he is entitled for getting interest @ 18 % for the delayed payment of full salary.
9. The counsel for the respondents in their counter affidavit have contested the claim of the applicant. The counsel for the respondents have also assailed the 12 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) interpretation of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the applicant is involved in a services disciplinary case while discharging the duties as Deputy Commissioner in processing of GST refunds. It has been alleged that he has issued refund sanctions and payment advised in respect of nearly 30 Crores. After examining of the records it has been found that serious discrepancies and lapses were observed on part of the applicant Shri Dinesh Bisnoi. The suspension order dated 22.5.2022 was effective till 19.8.2022. The Review Committee on 18.8.2022 recommended the extension of suspension period of the applicant giving the following reasons:-
i. "For alleged misconduct in sanctioning GST refunds, which prima facie are bogus, Shri Deinesh Bishnoi, Deputy Commissioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect, in terms of Rule 10(1)(a) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, vide Order dated 22.05.2022. The initial period of 90 days is coming to an end on 19.08.2022.
ii. The vigilance investigation is under progress by the North Zonal Unit of DGoV.
iii. The officer is drawing subsistence allowance at the normal rates."
The counsel for the respondents further averred that under CCA Rules 10 (1) (a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, there is provision for review of the suspension 13 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) period by a Review Committee as well as extension of the suspension period beyond the initial 90 days. He quoted the clause 6 of the said rules, which is follows:-
"(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension.
Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of hundred and eighty days at a time."
The Competent Authority has extended the suspension period of beyond the 90 days based on the recommendations of the Review Committee. Counsel for the respondents averred that there is no illegality or infirmity in extending the suspension period of the applicant beyond initial 90 days. Due procedure has been followed and the extension order is as per the statutory provisions under CCS (CCA) Rules 10.
10. The counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Tribunal to Clause 5(b) of the said Rules, which reads as under:-
"5(b) where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended ( where in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority 14 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to the under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings.
6. An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.
(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made sub-rule (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"
11. The counsel for the respondents draw attention of this Tribunal to the provisions of above rules which states that the order for extension of suspension shall not be valid unless it is extended after a review before the expiry of 90 days. In the instant case, there was a review and the review committee recommended for extension of suspension period of the applicant and the extension order was issued before the expiry of 90 days. In view of this, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no infirmity in the 15 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) impugned order extending the suspension period of the applicant for further 180 days.
12. As regards to ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) as cited by the counsel for the applicant and subsequent recitations of judgments which have reiterated the decision of the Apex court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) case, the counsel for the respondents stated that the Apex court has not taken away the power of extending the suspension period of an employee beyond the initial 90 days. He cited the judgment dated 13.9.2017 of the Delhi High Court in its W.P.C No. 8134/ 2017 and CM No. 33423/2017 in case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Dr. Rishi Anand, The aforementioned judgment reads as follows:-
"22. Thus, it is only if the suspension is not extended after review within the initial period of 90 days ( in a case to which sub rule(2) does not apply), that the suspension of the government servant would lapse automatically. In all other cases, the suspension would continue unless and until it is modified or revoked by the competent authority through it would not imply that there is no requirement to conduct periodic renewal of the suspension.
23. Thus, there is no force in the submission of respondent that the suspension of the respondent automatically lapsed since the charge sheet was not issued within the initial period of 90 days. Pertinently the respondents suspension was re viewed and extended by the government within 16 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) initial period of 90 days on 27.9.2016. Thus the suspension of the respondent did not lapse under sub rule (7) of Rule10 CCS (CCA) Rules." He further cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur AIR 1989 Sc 38 wherein it has been held :-
"Obviously because of this principle, the Hon'ble High Court has chosen to treat the principle contained in para 21 of Ajay Kumar Choudhary's as obiter, when it decided Rishi Anand's case.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the binding nature of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case cannot be doubted. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The whole difficulty is in the context of discerning the binding principle, and in that behalf of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has already undertaken an extensive exercise. Even by now, Rule 10 (7) remains in its original form, nor it was interpreted to mean something different. In Gurnam Kaur's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles as regards the binding precedents that tool in the context of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion reads as under:-
"11. Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the ratio decidendi are classed as obiter and are not authoritative. With all respect to the learned Judge who passed the order in Jamna Das case and to the learned Judge who agreed with him, we cannot concede that this Court is bound to follow it."
13. The Counsel for the respondents further cited para 19 of the judgment in WPC No. 8134/2017 in 17 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) Govt. NCT of Delhi vs. Dr. Rishi Anand wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that:
"19. The decision of the Supreme court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) itself shows that there cannot be a hard and fast rule in this regard. If that were so, the Supreme Court would have quashed the suspension of Ajay Kumar Choudhary. However, in view of the fact that the charge memo had been issued to Ajay Kumar Choudhary - though after nearly three years of his initial suspension, the Supreme Court held that the directions issued by it would not be relevant to his case.
20. From a reading of the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it emerges that the government is obliged to record its reasons for extension of the suspension which, if assailed, would be open to judicial scrutiny not as in appeal, but on grounds available in law for judicial review of administrative action.
14. In view of this, the counsel for the respondents stated that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India (supra) has not taken away the power of the competent authority for extending the period of suspension beyond 90 days if appropriate reasons are recorded in writing and the situation prevailing in the case demands so. He further cited the judgment dated 15.3.2022 of Madras High Court in WPC No.2165/2015 wherein all the previous judgments arising out of the Apex Court decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has arisen. In the said judgment 18 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) the Madras High Court cited the constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 673 wherein it has been held:-
(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. (2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of Coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench be consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
Inasmuch as the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary,(supra), has not considered the earlier judgments of Constitution Benches of the Apex Court, the earlier judgments, delivered by Bench of larger strength would be binding on High Courts too and it cannot be said that the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary(supra), lays down absolute proposition of law on suspension, as what was held in paragraph (21) of the judgment was not applied in the said case itself in paragraph (22). It is despite the fact that charge-sheet therein was submitted much beyond the period of three months.
19OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12)
34. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered by holding that:
(i) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, does not lay down absolute proposition of aw that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of three months if the memorandum of charges/charge- sheet has not been served within three months, or if memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served of without reasoned order of extension.
15. In view of the above, the counsel for the respondents has averred that the competent authority has the power under Rule 10 (1) ( a) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 clause 5 b and 6 to extend the suspension period beyond 90 days even if charge sheet has not been issued. In the instant case, the Review Committee has recommended and has given cogent reasons as to why suspension period should be extended beyond the initial 90 days. The competent Authority has passed adequate reasoned order regarding his agreement with recommending of the Review Committee. The Counsel for the respondents has further relied upon the notification dated 19.10.2022 vide which the DOP&T has amended Rules sub rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. As per the amendment, the period of suspension 20 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) wherein no charge sheet can be issued has been extended to a maximum 270 days in case of under suspension of Sub Rule (1) (a) where the disciplinary proceedings were contemplated / pending.
16. I have gone through the records of the case thoroughly and heard the arguments carefully. I am of the considered view that the judgment in the Apex court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) case has not laid absolute law regarding continuance and dis- continuance of the powers of extending suspension by the competent authority under Rules 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. I agree with the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the law, pronounced in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's (supra) case is not part of the ratio deci-dendi rather they are obiter dictum and are not authoritative. The analysis of the Madras High Court in P.Kannan vs. Commissioner of Municipal Corporation in WP (C )No. 2165/2015 is that the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case has not laid down absolute proposition of law on suspension. The Suspension Review Committee has recorded the reasons for extending the suspension period beyond 90 days. The gravity of the disciplinary 21 OA No.2518 of 2022 Court No.6 (item No.12) case and magnitude of the irregularities involved weigh heavily against the applicant. It was necessary to continue his suspension to demonstrate the policy of the government to deal with strictly with the officers involved in public scandals, particularly in corruption. The continuation of the suspension is also necessary to ensure that an officer is not in a position to tamper with the documents or influence the witnesses related to the case. Considering all these factors, the Suspension Review Committee recommended that suspension of Shri Dinesh Bisnoi should continue for a further period of 180 days. The Disciplinary Authority, after carful considering of all the facts and circumstances, decided to accept the recommendations of the Suspension Review Committee. We find no infirmity in the order of the disciplinary authority (Impugned order dated 18.8.2022).
17. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present OA and hence it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending MAs are also disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) /mk /