Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Aditya Kumar vs Home Affairs on 20 March, 2025
1 OA No. 907 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/00907 of 2024
Reserved on: 6th March, 2025.
Pronounced on: 20.03.2023.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]
HON'BLE MR. RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
Aditya Kumar (IPS-2011 Batch, 64 RR, under suspension), Son of Shri
Sundserpal, Office of the Inspector General of Police Patna, Department
of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna, Resident of B-505, Vasikunj
Apartments, Saguna More, Patna-801503 (Bihar). .... Applicant.
By Advocate: - Shri M.P. Dixit.
-Versus-
1. The Secretary, to the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2. The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna, (Bihar). 800001.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home (Police
Division), Government of Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna (Bihar). 800023.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of
Bihar, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 800023.
5. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Sardar Patel
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, (Bihar). 800023. .....
Respondents.
By Advocate: - Shri H.P. Singh, ld. Sr. CGSC for respondent no.1.
Shri Sarvdeo Singh with Shri A.K. Sharma and Shri
Sanjay Kumar, l/c for respondents no. 2 to 5.
ORDER
Per:- Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)
1. Instant OA has been filed by the applicant for the following relief: -
"8.1 That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to declare the continuance of suspension order dated 18.10.2022 as contained in Annexure A/1 issued by the Respondents State of Bihar beyond expiry of one year period i.e. from 17.10.2023 as null, void, ab initio wrong and illegal in view of amended provisions of Rule-3 of the All-India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, laid down in Annexure-II of clause-ix of DOPT OM dated 25.05.2016 as contained in Annexure A/3. 8.2 That Your Lordships may further be pleased to declare the consequential orders dated 15.12.2022, 11/12.04.2023, 06.10.2023, 08.04.2024 and 04.10.2024, extending the suspension order dated 18.10.2022 till 05.04.2025 as contained in Annexure A/2 series issued by the Respondents State of Bihar beyond expiry of one year period i.e. from 17.10.2023 as null, void, ab initio wrong and illegal in view of amended 2 OA No. 907 of 2024 provisions of Rule-3 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, laid down in Annexure-II, clause-ix of DOPT OM dated 25.05.2016 as contained in Annexure A/3.
8.3 That Your Lordships may further be pleased to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay with effect from 17.10.2023 minus the amount paid towards subsistence allowance treating the entire period as on duty for all purposes till the date of issuance of formal order revoking the suspension order. 8.4 Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the Applicant."
2. The facts of the case of the applicant as narrated in the OA is that: -
(i) That applicant is a Group-A officer of an Indian Police Service 2011 batch, presently under suspension since 18.10. 2022.
(ii) That the applicant while posted under the Inspector General of Police Bihar, Patna, was falsely implicated by Economic Offenses Unit (EOU) Bihar, Patna on 15.10.2022 under Section 353/387/ 419/ 420/467/468/120(b) of IPC and Section 66(C), 66(D) of Information & Technology Act, 2000 in connection with FIR No.33/2022. It is submitted that allegation levelled is not concerned with any charges of corruption.
(iii) That subsequently vide order dated 18.10.2022 issued by the respondents State of Bihar, applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 18.10.2022 under Rule-3 (3) of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 herein after AIS (D & A), Rules, 1969 (Annexure-A/1).
(iv) That the Suspension order was extended from time to time vide orders dated 15.12.2022, 11/12.04.2023 and 3 OA No. 907 of 2024 06.10.2023 whereby suspension was extended illegally and more so the suspension order so extended, are unsustainable beyond expiry of one year i.e. after 17.10.2023 in view of amended provision of Rule-3 of AIS (D & A) Rule-1969 circulated through OM dated 25.05.2016 issued by DOPT.
(v) That applicant has referred the said amended provisions laid down in Annexure-II, para ix of Rule-3 of AIS (D & A) Rule-1969 which reads as under: -
a. "The period of suspension of a member of Service suspended on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year but the same can be continued beyond one year on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee."
(vi) Learned counsel for applicant has stated that extension order is unsustainable in view of amended provisions laid down in Annexure-II, para- xiv of Rule-3 of AIS (D & A) Rule-1969 which deals with the composition of Central Ministry's Review Committee but in the case of applicant, it has not been followed in AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969.
(vii) That applicant has submitted representation on 05.11.2023 for revocation of suspension order but neither the suspension has been revoked after expiry of one year from the date of suspension nor subsistence allowance beyond 50% has been enhanced.4 OA No. 907 of 2024
(viii) That applicant has also been implicated in another case vide SVU (PS) case no.16/2022 for the allegation of Disproportionate Assets but no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the applicant till date. It is also stated that no charge sheet has been submitted before the court in both Criminal Cases.
(ix) That in the meantime as per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in connection with FIR No.33/2022, applicant has surrendered before the court on 05.12.2023 and on 25.04.2024 he was enlarged on bail.
(x) It is further stated by counsel for applicant that it is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary that if no charge sheet in departmental/criminal case is submitted within 90 days, suspension and its continuance should have been treated to have revoked for all purposes and in the present case charge sheet against FIR No.33/2022 has only been submitted on 06.03.2024 hence, on this ground alone suspension should have been treated as revoked in view of settled law.
(xi) It is further stated by counsel for applicant that after released on bail, applicant has submitted representation on 04.07.2024 but respondent State of Bihar has extended the suspension order dated 28.10.2022 till 05.04.2025 vide order dated 04.10.2024 which is illegal, arbitrary, punitive against rule and also against other 5 OA No. 907 of 2024 judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs Pramod Kumar in which prolong suspension has been deprecated.
(xii) That it is submitted that the suspension itself is bad in law because applicant is an IPS Officer whose appointing authority is Central Government whereas the impugned orders have been issued by the respondents State of Bihar even without any approval of Central Government.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has averred that: -
(i) That impugned orders as contained in Annexure A/1 & A/2 Series cannot be allowed to continue after expiry of one year in view of amended provisions laid down in Annexure-II, para ix of Rule-3 of AIS (D & A) Rule-1969. The provisions laid down in Annexure-II, para ix of Rule-3 of AIS (D & A) Rule-1969 reads as:-
"The period of suspension of a member of Service suspended on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year but the same can be continued beyond one year on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee."
(ii) That the impugned order is without competence of respondent State of Bihar in view of amended provisions laid down in Annexure-II, para xiv of Rule- 3 of AIS (D & A) Rule-1969. The composition of 6 OA No. 907 of 2024 Central Ministry's Review Committee as provided in para 1 of Schedule 2 shall comprise of the following:
(i) Secretary, Department of Personnel & Chairperson Training, Govt. of India
(ii) Secretary to the Government of India in the Member concerned Ministry/Department or a member nominated by him not below the level of Additional Secretary
(iii) Additional Secretary / Establishment Member Officer, Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India
(iii) It is also stated that impugned orders are otherwise unsustainable as no charge sheet has been submitted for about one and half years in connection with FIR No. 33/2022 and even no departmental proceeding has been initiated nor any allegation of corruption has been reported.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has relied on the order/judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by Hon'ble High Court in CWJC No. 7341/2024 and order dated 12.02.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.386/2017 and prayed to allow this OA.
5. Respondents have filed written statement wherein it has been stated that: -
(i) It is stated that Additional Director General, Economic Offences Unit vide their letter No.385/Conf., dated 17.10.2022 provided information to Home Department (Police Branch) that Economic Offences Police Station Case No.33/2022, dated 15.10.2022 under Section 353/387/419/420/ 467/468/120 (B) IPC and 66 (C) and 66 (D) IT Act, 2000 is registered against Shri Aditya Kumar, IPS 7 OA No. 907 of 2024 (2011), Assistant Inspector General (Inspection), Bihar Patna, along with copy of the F.I.R. It is stated that the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna vide their letter No.2454 dated 17.10.2022, (Annexure-A of WS) along with the copy of the Economic Offences Unit's letter, informed to Home Department about the criminal case registered against the applicant and the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna recommended for suspension of the applicant with immediate effect.
(ii) That it is further stated in the WS that the State Government, after considering the registered case against applicant, he was suspended with immediate effect under rule 3(3) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 vide resolution No. 10537 dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure-B of WS) and information regarding suspension of applicant was sent to Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India under rule 3(9)(d) and 3(10) All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 vide letter No. 10599 dated 19.10.2022. It is further stated that report in this regard was also sent to Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, with request to confirm the suspension vide letter No. 10602 dated 19.10.2022. (Annexure- C and C1 of WS).
(iii) That it is further submitted that Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in response to State 8 OA No. 907 of 2024 Government letters, communicated vide letter dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure-D of the WS) that proposal of state government for confirmation of suspension of Shri Aditya Kumar, IPS (BH:2011) was examined in this Ministry in the light of provisions of rule 3 of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969. It is also stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that Shri Aditya Kumar, IPS has been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 3(3) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 criminal charge. As such, the State Government is the authority competent to place Shri Aditya Kumar, IPS under suspension until the termination of all criminal proceedings in terms of the aforesaid rule. It is also stated that suspension will be subject to review, from time to time, by the State Government in terms of rule 3(8) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969.
(iv) That it is further submitted that as per the statement and advice received from Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the matter of extension of suspension of Shri Aditya Kumar was taken up by State Review Committee from time to time and as per their recommendation and approval of Disciplinary Authority, the period of suspension was extended. In this process, five extensions have been given from 16.12.2022 beyond the initial period of sixty days of suspension of the applicant and the latest extension has 9 OA No. 907 of 2024 been given up to 05.04.2025 vide resolution No. 11761 dated 04.10.2024.
6. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that applicant has been placed under suspension on serious criminal charges under Rule 3(3) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 which empowers the State Government to place him under suspension until the termination of all criminal proceedings and his suspension has been extended from time to time under Rule 3(8) of the said Rules and requests to dismiss the OA.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent (State Government) has also submitted an additional written statement interpreting the same rule 3(8) mentioned in the previous paragraph giving justification for the applicant's suspension and extensions on the basis of a letter of MHA dated 11.11.2022 that since the suspension was based on criminal charges, the State Government was the competent authority to place the applicant under suspension until the conclusion of all criminal proceedings. They have further stated that suspension, however, was to be reviewed periodically by the State Government in accordance with the Rule 3(8) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969.
8. The State Government has interpreted this advice that they need to get it reviewed periodically by State Review Committee only.
10 OA No. 907 of 2024
9. With consent of both parties, we have heard the matter in its entirety and come to the following conclusion: -
(i) First of all, we will like to reproduce Rule 3(3) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 that reads as follows:
"A member of the Service in respect of, or against, whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may, at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a [member of the Service] or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude"
At the moment we do not intend to go into the merits of the suspension order as this is entirely within the decision-making power of the respondent authorities. This Tribunal is under obligation to decide whether the subsequent periodic extensions of this order of suspension beyond a period of one year, that have been passed by respondent officials are as per procedure established by the Government or not.
(ii) Learned counsel for applicant has already stated that there is no mention of any Central Review Committee ever and as per his information recommendation of Central Review Committee was never ever taken. This part is conceded by the respondent as well as they have clearly stated that the order has been periodically reviewed even beyond a period of one year by the State Review Committee only.
11 OA No. 907 of 2024
(iii) On previous occasion, when this Tribunal passed order dated 04.02.2025, this Tribunal has found that interim relief and original relief are similar and a specific query was raised whether the rules for extension of suspension period have been followed or not. So, the main contentious issue is revolving whether the extension of suspension period that was done as per para-10 of the written statement on the basis of recommendation of the State Review Committee from time to time is procedurally correct or not.
(iv) Today, Shri Sarvdeo Singh, ld. counsel for respondents no.2 to 5 appears and he could not produce any paper that could prove that the case of the applicant for extension of his period of suspension was ever considered by the Central Review Committee. On the contrary, the last order dated 04.10.2024 by which the extension of suspension period beyond 06.10.2024 for further six months up to 05.04.2025 has been recommended by the State Suspension Review Committee.
(v) Again, this query was put before the counsel for respondents that if he can show us any rule by which the State Government has the power to supplant the statutory procedure as laid down in the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969, he replied that he is under instruction from the department that it is not needed to get the 12 OA No. 907 of 2024 recommendation of the Central Review Committee. The recommendation of the State Review Committee will serve the purpose. We have again asked that if this be so then relevant rules should be produced which will say that said Rule-3 of AIS (D & A) Rule-1969 has been amended to which there is no answer.
10. In view of above discussion made herein above, it is clear that the discretion of State Government to continue with the suspension does not mean that the statutory procedure for periodic extension will not be followed and the State Government has the discretion to supplant this procedure by their own procedure of getting the review done even beyond a period of one year in this instant case by State Review Committee only. Hence, the continuation of suspension beyond the period of one year is without any authority because as per WS of the respondents, it has been done only on the recommendation of State Review Committee. The provisions laid down in Annexure-II, para ix of Rule-3 of AIS (D & A) Rule-1969 reads as: -
"The period of suspension of a member of Service suspended on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year but the same can be continued beyond one year on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee."
11. Hence, all the consequent orders passed after 17.10.2023 for extensions of suspension period beyond this period of suspension, i.e. 17.10.2023 is declared null and void. Accordingly, applicant will be treated as under suspension only up to 17.10.2023 and not beyond it as per the original 13 OA No. 907 of 2024 order of suspension. The State Government has not got any authority to supplant the statutory rules by devising its own rule of getting the review done by State Review Committee instead of Central Review Committee even beyond a period of one year in the instant case that is not a case of corruption.
12. But the issue is complicated here because it has been learnt during the course of argument that the applicant was absconding in the instant criminal case on 18.10.2023. He had subsequently surrendered before the concerned criminal court after having failed in getting any relief in the form of bail by even the Apex court, and remained incarcerated till 25th April 2024. Hence, we will refrain from passing an order deciding his date of revocation of suspension because this tribunal is not aware as to what was the whereabouts and status of applicant on 18.10.2023. If he was absconding in a criminal case then immediately after the revocation of the order of suspension, the applicant may be put under suspension again by a fresh order. Therefore, this tribunal is of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the State Government to follow the procedure and decide the case as per statutory provisions for taking a decision with regard to extension or otherwise of the period of suspension beyond 17.10.2023.
13. OA stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[Rajveer Singh Verma] [Kumar Rajesh Chandra]
Member [J] Member [A]
BP/-