Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
M Madhusudhan Reddy vs South Central Railway on 30 November, 2024
OA/20/1017/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/20/01017/2024
HYDERABAD, this the 30th day of November, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
M. Madhusudhan Reddy, IRAS (2008)
S/o. M. Baya Reddy, Aged 42 years,
On Deputation to Government of Andhra Pradesh
Former Managing Director, APSFL,
Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Add: 2nd Floor, Flat No. 201,
Buvanavijaya Apts, Tadepalle, Guntur.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy)
Vs.
1. The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Government of India.
2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG;
Mr. B. Rajeswar Reddy, SC for AP)
Page 1 of 16
OA/20/1017/2024
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) The applicant filed the OA seeking the following relief:
"...to set aside the impugned order of suspension of the applicant vide GO Ms. No. 75, dated 19.08.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent as clearly illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power and clear violation of the applicant's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant belongs to IRAS (2008) batch officer. The Railway Board vide order dt. 20.08.2019 placed the services of the applicant at the disposal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh on deputation, initially for a period of three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, he reported in General Administration Department of the 2nd respondent on 26.08.2019 (FN) and he has been admitted into duty in Government of Andhra Pradesh from the said date duly protecting his pay and allowances drawn in his parent department. Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Rt. No. 2227, dt. 10.10.2019 to that effect. The Cadre Controlling Authority of the applicant has accorded no objection to the extension of the tenure of deputation of the applicant vide order dt. 17.06.2022 with the 2nd respondent for the 4th and 5th years i.e. up to 22.08.2024. Consequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh also accorded sanction for extension of tenure of deputation of the applicant for further period of two years i.e. from 26.08.2022 to 22.08.2024 on the same terms and conditions. While so, vide order dt. 07.06.2024 the services of the applicant have been withdrawn by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from the Infrastructure and Investment (I&I) Department and he was directed to report before the GA (SC.A) Dept for further posting. He was further instructed by Page 2 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 18.08.2024 not to get relieved without proper relief orders. It was alleged that the applicant while working as Managing Director, AP State Fibernet Limited (for short "APSFL") on deputation has committed certain irregularities and financial mismanagement in APSFL, resulting in revenue loss to the State Exchequer and undue gains to several private persons and the Government decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is further alleged that the applicant is still influencing some of the employees and trying to cover up his misdeeds and as many employees in APSFL are private persons hired during his tenure as MD, there is apprehension of tampering of records and destruction of evidence by them under the influence of the applicant. Therefore, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, placed the applicant under suspension with immediate effect vide order dt. 19.08.2024.
3. It is contended by the applicant that during his period of deputation to the State of Andhra Pradesh, there was no complaint received against him nor he was issued with any Memos on account of any financial irregularities. The Government vide Memo dt. 18.08.2024 directed the applicant not to get relieved himself without proper relief orders from the Government as his presence is required in the Government for further period. However, on the very next date i.e. on 19.08.2024, the Government placed him under suspension. It is contended that, though in the suspension order, a reference has been made to a report, copy of such report has not been furnished to the applicant and as directed by the 2nd respondent, he reported to GAD on Page 3 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 07.06.2024 and he is no more MD, APSFL. Therefore, the question of influencing anybody in APSFL and tampering with the evidence and the material available with the 2nd respondent would not arise. Further contention of the applicant is that the very fact that he has been placed under suspension soon after formation of new Government shows that it is a clear case of victimization and harassment meted out to him for discharging his duties as per rules.
4. It is further contended by the applicant that the 2 nd respondent knowing well that his deputation would come to an end on 22.08.2024, with a malafide intention to harass him, issued the impugned suspension on 19.08.2024. As on today, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and no charge memo is pending against him and therefore, continuation of suspension would not arise. The applicant, while referring to the sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 contended that under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the said Rules, there are three clauses indicating the circumstances under which a Government servant can be placed under suspension viz., (a) where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending; (aa) where in the opinion of the authority, the Government servant has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; (b) where a criminal case is under investigation, inquiry or trial. It is the specific contention of the applicant that though sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the said Rules has been invoked in the impugned order, the 2nd respondent did not invoke any of the provisos under the sub-rule (1) and in the absence of such proviso, Page 4 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 the impugned order is nonest and the same is accordingly liable to be set aside.
5. After hearing at length on the interim relief, this Tribunal granted an interim order dt. 21.08.2024 staying the impugned suspension order dt. 19.08.2024.
6. Upon notice, the 2nd respondent - State of Andhra Pradesh filed counter affidavit stating that the applicant, who was deputed to Government of Andhra Pradesh for a period of 3 years on 20.08.2019, was posted as Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Industries & Commerce Dept. Subsequently, he was posted as Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Fibernet Ltd vide order dt. 19.05.2020. His deputation period was further extended by 2 years till 22.08.2024 vide order dt. 06.07.2022. Thereafter, vide order dt. 07.06.2024, he was directed to report to the GAD. It is stated by the respondents that during his tenure as MD, APSFL, the applicant was allegedly involved in siphoning of funds and other illegal activities, thereby causing great loss to the public money. The MD, APSFL submitted a report dt. 14.08.2024 pointing out several irregularities and financial mismanagement committed by the applicant during his tenure as MD, APSFL. As the matter requires a comprehensive review of documents to determine the overall financial implications on the State Exchequer, the matter was sought to be referred to the Vigilance and Enforcement Dept for further investigation. Upon receipt of the said report, the Government ordered an enquiry by the General Administration (V & E) Dept vide Memo dt. 19.08.2024. Having regard to the Page 5 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 severe allegations against the applicant, it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and consequently, he was placed under suspension. It is also stated by the respondents that articles of charge were also directed to be issued vide UO Note dt. 19.08.2024.
7. It is the contention of the respondents that the allegations against the applicant surfaced only in August, 2024 and immediate steps were taken and preliminary enquiry was conducted and only thereafter, the impugned order was issued. Thus, the respondents denied the averments of the applicant that the enquiry and the suspension is a result of the new Government. The lending department has also been intimated regarding the suspension of the applicant, as required under Rule 20 and the lending department was also requested to continue the deputation of the applicant vide letter dt. 18.08.2024. It is further stated that the statute specifically provides that an employee can be suspended even when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him and as such, placing the applicant under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings is legal and is not in violation of any rules. Hence, the respondents prayed for vacating the interim order and dismissal of the OA.
8. Heard Mr. K. Sudhaker Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Dhammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh along with Mr. B. Rajeswar Reddy, learned GP for AP; and Mrs. K. Rajitha, learned Sr. PC for CG for 1st respondent and perused the entire material on record.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the very suspension order is vague as the same has been issued without invoking specific proviso under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the said defect cannot be Page 6 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 validated by way of subsequent actions/ orders and as such, the said order is void ab initio. In his support, he relies upon the order passed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others [1978 (1) SCC 405] on the point that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, "its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out." We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J, in Govardhandas Bhanji:
"Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
Learned counsel submitted that when the tenure of the applicant's deputation was coming to an end by 22.08.2024, just four days before the said date, the 2nd respondent issued the suspension order, though it is stated by themselves that in August 2024 itself allegations against the applicant surfaced. Learned counsel further submitted that, the applicant being on deputation cannot over stay the period of deputation in the borrowing deputation without any proper order extending his deputation from his parent department. DOPT issued OM dt. 15.03.2024 in this regard which is binding on the applicant as well as on the respondents. In view of the guidelines issued by the DOPT, as there was no order of extension of deputation, the applicant got relieved himself and reported to his parent department and his parent department took him into duties and issued posting orders to him on 08.10.2024. Page 7 of 16
OA/20/1017/2024
10. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that as the applicant was already withdrawn from the APSFL w.e.f. 07.06.2024, there was no occasion for the applicant to influence or tamper with the evidence already collected by the 2nd respondent and therefore, the applicant ought not to have been placed under suspension. The suspension order is untenable and the same is liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh vehemently contended that there is no illegality in the action of the 2nd respondent in placing him under suspension. Learned Advocate General submitted that certain serious allegations came to light against the applicant in August 2024 and a report was submitted to that effect by the incumbent Managing Director, APSFL and after considering the same, the competent authority thought it fit to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. Therefore, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was placed under suspension.
12. It is not in dispute that the applicant was on deputation initially for three years. Further, considering his service being useful for the respondent organization, the respondent No.2 sought for extension of deputation and accordingly, the deputation has been extended for a period of two more years with the approval of the Central Government. It is to be noted that in the matter of deputation, the policies/ guidelines framed by the DOPT are binding upon both the deputationist as well as the State/ Department who have borrowed the person on deputation from another Department. Further, vide OM dt. 15.03.2024, DOPT has fixed the final tenure of deputation, which was Page 8 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 restricted to five years in the matter of Group 'A' officers. Further, in any circumstances, if the concerned Government in which the Central Government employee is working on deputation, is in requirement of the services of the deputationist, they have to move a proposal to the Central Government for his retention/ extension of the deputation period for further course of action in whatsoever in nature.
13. It is also to be seen from the guidelines issued under the OM dt. 15.03.2024 that an officer who does not handover the charge on expiry of the approved period of deputation will be liable for disciplinary action and break- in-service for the period beyond the approved date. In the instant case, the applicant's period of deputation was only up to 22.08.2024 and without there being any order extending his deputation, had the applicant not returned to parent department on completion the said deputation period, not only he would be liable for disciplinary action, but for also stoppage of his salary for the period beyond the period of deputation. The relevant clauses of the DOPT OM dt. 15.03.2024 are as follows:
"(ix) In cases where an officer has completed the approved period of deputation, it would be made clear to the officer and to the Cadre Authorities concerned that adverse notice will be taken at the time of empanelment and promotion of the officer if the officer continued on such deputation beyond the approved period of deputation.
(x) The deputation is valid only for the period for which it is allowed by the Central Government and any extension is neither automatic nor should be presumed merely on the ground that the Cadre Authorities concerned or officer or both made a request for extension. As such, the officer shall be entitled to draw salary etc. in the borrowing State Government to which he/she has been deputed only for the period for which he/she has been allowed deputation by the Government of India. The officer shall not be entitled to draw salary etc. after expiry of the period of deputation. An officer on such deputation shall relinquish charge and get himself/herself relieved on the last day of his/her deputation, if no orders extending his/her deputation by the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority are received in the borrowing State Government.Page 9 of 16
OA/20/1017/2024
(xi) An officer who does not handover charge at the end of the approved period of deputation will be immediately liable to disciplinary action and break-in-service for the period beyond the approved date. All orders of deputation will carry endorsement to this effect. Further, an endorsement will also be made to the Accountant General of the State/UT Administration or competent authority concerned to stop payment of salary to the officer beyond the approved period of deputation. In case of overstay, the officer will be immediately liable to disciplinary action and break-in-service for the period beyond the approved date.
(xiii) In the event the officer overstays for any reason whatsoever, he/she is liable for disciplinary action and other adverse Civil/Service consequences which would include the period of overstay not being counted towards service for the purpose of pension and any increment due during the period of overstay being deferred with cumulative effect, till that date on which the officer rejoins in his parent organisation.
(xiv) The State/UT/borrowing Organisations are advised to relieve the officer promptly on the last date of completion of the deputation tenure without fail unless the competent authority in the Central Government extends the period of deputation in writing prior to its date of expiry."
As seen from the above, the State/UT/ borrowing organizations are advised to relieve the officer promptly on the last date of deputation period without fail, unless the competent authority extends the period of deputation in writing prior to the date of expiry. Admittedly, the last date of completion of deputation was 22.08.2024 and there was no order of the competent authority extending the deputation period of the applicant prior to expiry of the said date. It is not even the case of the respondent No.2 that the proposal for extension of the deputation of the applicant was sent to his parent department in advance sufficiently so as to obtain the order of extension before completion of the deputation period.
14. This Tribunal had occasion to deal with the suspension of an All India Service officer vide orders in OA No. 273/2023 dt. 08.05.2024 and OA No. 1092/2019 dt. 25.02.2020. Relevant observations of this Tribunal in OA No. 273/2023 are as under:
Page 10 of 16
OA/20/1017/2024 "The order of this Tribunal has been challenged by the applicant in WP No.8185/2020. The Hon‟ble High Court has considered the entire facts and records as well as the submissions of both sides along with the citations relied upon by both parties and the order of this Tribunal in depth, the first suspension was under "Rule-3(1), the Hon‟ble High Court noticed that the reasons for the conclusion are lacking in the impugned (first) suspension order. The reasons, the material and the conclusion, the thought process of the court will be in the reasons and failure to give "reasons", in the opinion of the Hon‟ble High Court vitiates the Tribunal‟s order and the reasons would have enabled the Hon‟ble High Court to appreciate the conclusions of the Tribunal. Since the Hon‟ble High Court has considered involvement of the applicant, entire material in respect of the said tenders process.
The Hon‟ble High Court further observed as under:
"This Court also notices that the "reasons" for the conclusion (which would enable this Court to come to a conclusion whether there was justifiable material) are lacking in the impugned order. Reasons would indicate the connection between the material and the conclusion. The thought process of the Court will be in the reasons. The failure to give reasons in the opinion of this Court vitiates the order of the Tribunal. The reasons would have enabled this Court to appreciate the conclusions of the Tribunal."
xxx. xxxx xxxx Next point to be seen is about the continuation of the suspension. The petitioner was initially suspended on 08.02.2020 as required under the Rules. The same was also approved by the Government of India. Therefore, it was argued that there is application of mind by the State. This Court has noticed the case law on the subject and the same was referred to more than once in this order already. The need to keep an Officer under suspension and to continue his suspension is necessary if there is a likelihood of the Officer impeding the progress of the investigation or the enquiry. The Authority should consider all the available material to come to a conclusion that it would not be desirable to keep the delinquent in Office, since he is likely to hamper or frustrate the enquiry."
Xxxx xxxxx xxxxx Rule 3 of the 1969 Rules, talks of suspension. The factors, which are necessary for placing an Officer under suspension are (a) the circumstances of the case,
(b) the nature of the charges, and (c) satisfaction, necessity and desirability. This Court is reiterating that for an Officer to be placed under suspension, by virtue of a plain language interpretation of this case, the Authority should be satisfied basing upon the circumstances of the case, the evidence collected till then and the nature of the charges that the Officer should be placed under suspension. Therefore, there should be some material for the Appointing Authority to come to a conclusion about the nature of the charges and the circumstances of the case. The further satisfaction for keeping the Officer under suspension and/or continuing him should also be based on some material.
While, at this stage, there is no necessity for clear or what is called adequate proof, still in the opinion of this Court there should be some material available. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has said that there Page 11 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 should be a strong prima facie case against the delinquent. This, therefore, implies that the satisfaction reached by the Authority for suspending a delinquent or keeping him under suspension should be based on some objective material and cannot purely be subjective. Xxxx xxxx"
15. It is also not in dispute that the applicant's services had been withdrawn from the said post from 07.06.2024 and he was directed to report to GAD, which he did. Two months thereafter, the respondent No.2 on receipt of various complaints which alleged that some irregularities were committed by the applicant while working as MD, APSFL. Therefore, the respondent No.2 conducted inquiry and on the basis of the available evidence and after careful examination of the report, the Government have decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and they have apprehension of tampering of records and destruction of evidence by the employees in APSFL, who were hired during the tenure of the applicant as MD, APSFL and in order to ensure that he does not influence the present and past employees during the period of enquiry, the applicant has been placed under suspension by impugned order dt. 19.08.2024. It is also stated in the impugned order that,. Thus, it is clear that the applicant had been away from APSFL from 07.06.2024 and we are surprised to note that the 2nd respondent stating that there is apprehension that the employees who hired during his tenure may tamper the records and destruct the evidence. When services of the applicant had already been withdrawn two months back, the apprehension of the 2 nd respondent that the employees of APSFL would tamper the records is totally unfounded and the suspension of the applicant is not justifiable.
16. We have also perused the report dt. 14.08.2024 submitted by the incumbent MD, APSFL to the Secretary, Infrastructure & Investment. As Page 12 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 seen from the said report, there is reference to certain adverse news reports and it is stated that numerous complaints and irregularities surfaced regarding potential mismanagement within APSFL on various issues and to prevent further damage and protect critical information, the Government of Andhra Pradesh temporarily suspended the APSFL's operations effect June 7, 2024 and the Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force has since taken the control of the premises, sealing the office and the necessary records have been seized by the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the said record, the report has been prepared and they have decided to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant. Thus, having regard to the fact that the services of the applicant had been withdrawn from 07.06.2024 and he was directed to report to GAD, which he did on 07.06.2024 itself and the very operations of the APSFL were suspended temporarily from 07.06.2024 and the control of the premises was taken over by the AP Special Protection Force and the office was sealed, we see no justification for the suspension of the applicant stating that he can influence the employees working there so as to tamper and destruct the evidence.
17. In similar circumstances, this Tribunal dealt with a case and passed very detailed order in OA No. 1092/2019 and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
"22. Coming to the legality of the order of suspension, it needs to be observed that whatever be the freedom of an employer to place its employee under suspension, some amount of restrain is to be maintained when the employee is the one, who is under deputation. Basically, it is for the original employer i.e. the lending department to regulate conduct of its employee. If an employee, while on deputation to another department, has resorted to any acts of illegality, such instances are required to be brought to the notice of the parent department so that it can take appropriate steps. It can withdraw the employee forthwith, or Page 13 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 may suggest a course of action. In a way, the reputation of the lending department also would be at stake. Obviously, for that reason, the ultimate punishment can take place in the hands or with the consent of the lending department. If it only when the matter cannot brook any further delay, or when the lending department did not object to such a course, that a borrowing department can place the employee on deputation under suspension.
Xxxx
24. The circumstances under which an employee can be placed under suspension are fairly well settled. The principal objective is to ensure that the employee does not meddle with the inquiry into his alleged irregularities. Many a time, the transfer of an employee to another post or place, is treated as a close substitute for suspension. However, if the charges or allegations are grave, suspension is taken recourse to. The impugned order of suspension does not even refer to the existence of any serious acts or omissions on the part of the applicant. He was already stripped of his position as CEO way back in July 2019, and he was idle for 5 months. Nowhere, it is mentioned that during the period of 5 months, the applicant has indulged in any objectionable activities. On the other hand, his complaint is that he was not assigned any duties and was not paid salary and thereby he faced mental agony.
25. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013 (916) SCC
147), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the subject of suspension pending inquiry in detail. Quite large number of precedents were taken note of.
Xxxx Xxxx Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. Xxxxx xxx Xxxxx If the parameters mentioned above are applied to the facts of the present case, the order of suspension becomes untenable.
Xxxx
27. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any factual or legal basis for issuing the impugned order of suspension. It does not stand scrutiny of law and the same deserves to be set aside."
Page 14 of 16
OA/20/1017/2024 Like in the above case, the applicant in the present case had also been stripped of his position as MD, APSFL from 07.06.2024 onwards and in his place, new incumbent had been posted and the applicant reported to GAD for posting. Further, admittedly, the applicant in the instant case had also been out of the mischief range from 07.06.2024 onwards, more so in view of the fact that the very operations of the APSFL were temporary suspended and the control of the premises was taken over by the APSPF and the office was sealed from 07.06.2024 onwards, the applicant would not be in a position to gain custody or control of the papers or can take any advantage of his position. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension does not stand to judicial scrutiny and the same is liable to be set aside on this count also.
18. Further, it is also to be noted, followed with the guidelines issued under OM dt. 15.03.2024 at clause 3(x) thereof, the officer shall relinquish charge and get himself relieved on the last day of his deputation, if no orders extending his deputation by the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority are received in the borrowing State Government. Admittedly, there was no order by the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority extending the applicant's deputation period, which was up to 22.08.2024, whereas, the 2nd respondent directed the applicant vide letter dt. 18.08.2024 not to submit any relinquishing letter. Clause (x) of the DOPT guidelines further makes it clear that an officer shall be entitled to draw salary etc in the borrowing State Government to which he has been deputed only for the period for which he has been allowed deputation by the Government of India and the officer shall not be entitled to draw salary etc after expiry of the period of deputation. Therefore, in those circumstances, left with no option, the applicant got Page 15 of 16 OA/20/1017/2024 himself relieved on completion of his deputation period and reported to his parent department to avoid disciplinary action and further repercussions. It is also to be noted that the parent department of the applicant took the applicant on duty on his return from deputation and also issued orders dt. 08.10.2024 posting him to East Central Railway, Hajipur and he has been working in the said posting, which is more than 1000 Km away from Vijayawada, AP. Thus, the applicant is no more the employee of the 2nd respondent by any means.
19. In view of the above position, the purpose of the suspension order is frustrated. It is also to be noted that the respondent No.2 themselves wanted to keep the applicant away from APSFL so that he may not indulge in any tampering of evidence etc. Now, the parent department has given him posting and he is working at a far off place and he has no access to the 2nd respondent's office in any manner.
20. Therefore, in our considered view, respondents have not justified the suspension by any cogent and valid reasons. Further, the suspension order itself is vague in nature and it does not sustain in the eyes of law. The impugned suspension order is accordingly set aside.
21. In the result, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the benefits payable to the applicant, if any withheld pursuant to his suspension, forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
al/evr
Page 16 of 16