Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajender Chawla vs M/O Finance on 16 December, 2025
1
Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with
OA No. 2821/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 3253/2016
With
OA No. 2821/2016
Reserved on: 06.11.2025
Pronounced on: 16.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
OA No. 3253/2016
Rajender Chawla
Aged 36 years, Group B
Ex-Inspector of Customs & Central Excise
C-9/206 Sector -7, Rohini, Delhi-85 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. R.K. Shukla)
VERSUS
Union of India through
1. The Secretary to the Government of India
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. The Commissioner of Customs(Preventive)
Office of the Commissioner of Customs
NCH, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037
3. The Chief Commissioner (Customs)
Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs
NCH, Near IGI Airport
New Delhi-110037. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Ring Baliyan for Sh. Gyanendra Singh)
NEHA Digitally signed by
NEHA SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.12.16
15:29:28+05'30'
2
Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with
OA No. 2821/2016
OA No. 2821/2016
Rajender Chawla
Aged 36 years, Group B
Ex-Inspector of Customs & Central Excise
C-9/206 Sector -7, Rohini, Delhi-85 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. R.K. Shukla)
VERSUS
Union of India through
1. The Secretary to the Government of India
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. The Commissioner of Customs(Preventive)
Office of the Commissioner of Customs
NCH, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037
3. The Chief Commissioner (Customs)
Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs
NCH, Near IGI Airport
New Delhi-110037. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Ring Baliyan for Sh. Gyanendra Singh)
NEHA Digitally signed by
NEHA SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.12.16
15:29:28+05'30'
3
Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with
OA No. 2821/2016
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) Both the captioned Original Applications (OAs) have been filed by the same original applicant and certain factual matrix of these two cases is common. In this background, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, these OAs have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.
2. Undisputed brief facts of the case as derived from the pleadings on record are that the applicant joined the services under the respondents as Inspector of Central Excise at Delhi on 12.09.2005. Later, he was transferred to Panchkula, Haryana, being the part of Delhi circle. On 26.06.2007, he was arrested in a case registered by the CBI under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As the applicant remained in custody and released on bail after 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension with effect from 26.06.2007 vide order dated 29.06.2007. Later, in the year 2010, the applicant was reinstated into service. On 14.12.2012, he was convicted by the Learned Special CBI Court, Panchkula and was sentenced rigorous imprisonment NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 4 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 for six months and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. However, the interim bail was granted on 14.12.2012 itself for one month and the applicant was not taken into custody upon sentencing.
3. The applicant challenged the conviction and sentence by way of a criminal miscellaneous appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide Crl. Misc. No. 923 of 2013, Crl. Appeal No. 55-SB of 2013 and Crl. Misc. No. 924 of 2013 dated 09.01.2013. The Hon'ble High Court granted regular bail and suspended the sentence of the applicant till the disposal of the appeal. On 15.01.2013, the applicant informed the respondents about his conviction and the grant of interim as well as regular bail and admittance of his criminal appeal and suspension of the sentence till disposal of the appeal.
4. The respondents vide order dated 12.08.2013 placed the applicant under deemed suspension with retrospective effect NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 5 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 i.e. from 14.12.2012, which is the date of his sentence, by invoking the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
5. By way of OA No. 3253/2016, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"1. The impugned Suspension order C.No. VIII (Cus. Prev.) CIU/27/14/13/618 dated 12-08-2013 passed by the Respondent No. 2 be quashed/set aside.
2. The impugned appellate order F.No. CCPU(DZ) OIO/RC/289/2013/Pt./10907 Dated 06-08-2015 passed by the Respondent No. 3 be quashed/set aside.
3. The applicant be treated on duty up to the date of is dismissal with all consequential benefits, including but not confined to Tuition Fees, Bonus, Arrears of DA etc.
4. Pass any other order or direction in favour of the applicant, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and
5. Allow the OA with costs."
6. In support of the claim of the applicant, as made in OA No. 3253/2016, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that though the applicant was convicted by the Learned Special CBI Court, Panchkula vide order dated 14.12.2012, however, interim bail was granted to him on 14.12.2012 itself and the regular bail was granted and sentence was suspended by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 09.01.2013, the applicant has not undergone imprisonment even for a single day after his conviction and, therefore, the respondents have NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 6 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 wrongly placed him under deemed suspension vide impugned order dated 12.08.2013 and the appeal of the applicant against such impugned order has been ignored and his claim has wrongly been disputed and denied in the counter reply.
7. In support of the claim, the applicant has placed reliance on an order/judgment dated 22.12.1994 of a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 317/1990 titled Animesh Sengupta vs. Union of India & Ors. and further a common order/judgment dated 01.02.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 11149/2009 titled UOI & Anr. vs. Kewal Krishan Loona.
8. On the other hand, the respondents have stated that in terms of Rule 10(2)(b) of the Rules, the applicant has rightly been placed under deemed suspension in view of the admitted fact that he was convicted by the Learned Court on 14.12.2012. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that the applicant had drawn full salary upto 31.07.2013 in excess to the salary/allowance permissible to him for the period 14.12.2012 to 11.11.2013 under FR 53(1). It is also asserted that the plea of the applicant that respondents have NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 7 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 denied him any salary or subsistence allowance, is not tenable.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
10. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the issue which arises for adjudication in OA No. 3253/2016 is that even if the applicant has been convicted in the aforesaid case FIR by the Learned Trial Court on 14.12.2012, however, in view of the fact that in the light of the interim order and/or regular order regarding his bail, if he has not undergone imprisonment for even a single day; to invoke the provisions of Rule 10(2)(b) of the Rules, the impugned order(s) of suspension are tenable in law?
11. Identical issue came for consideration before a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Animesh Sengupta (supra) and the Tribunal has reproduced the issue/question before it in paragraph 1 and the answer to the issue in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the order/judgment as under:
"1. The Division Bench consisting of Mr. P.K. Mallick and Mr. N. Sengupta has referred the following question to the Full Bench:
"In case a Government servant convicted in a criminal case and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours is not NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 8 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction, and is on bail pending the disposal of an appeal against his conviction, whether he can be deemed to have been placed under suspension under Rule 10(2)(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules in view of the explanation appearing below that Rule."
XXX XXX XXX
6. As we are concerned with the deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) (b) of the Rules, we shall confine our attention to that provision alone. The 'suspension under sub-rule (2) is automatic and takes effect of fulfillment of the conditions specified therein. This provision contains two parts, the first speaks about the date from which the deemed suspension becomes effective and the second speaks about the conditions which are required to be fulfilled for the deeming suspension to come into effect. So far as the deemed date is concerned, the opening words of Rule 10(2)(b) in unambiguous terms say that it would take effect from the date of conviction of the Government servant. The second part, deals with the conditions to be fulfilled for the deeming suspension to take effect. The conditions specified are: (i) that the Government servant should have been convicted for an offence, (ii) that he should have been sentenced for a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours, and, (iii) he should not have been forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. The explanation says that the period of forty eight hours contemplated by Rule 10(2)(b) shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction. This is further amplified by saying that intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account. This is only to make it clear that what is contemplated is a total period of imprisonment for forty-eight bows and not a continuous period of imprisonment for forty-eight boors. The explanation has to be read into the second condition noted above. The effect of the explanation is that it is not enough that a sentence of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours has been awarded by the court and what is relevant is the actual imprisonment for a period exceeding forty-eight hours in the aggregate. As the explanation says how the period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules has to be computed, the same cannot be ignored and has to be given full effect to. One of the principles of interpretation is that no part of the statutory provision, should be regarded as redundant and if two provisions are seemingly inconsistent, an attempt has to be made for harmoniously construing those provisions. The language of Rule 10(2)(b) is precise, unambiguous and admits only one meaning. Hence, it has to be understood in the natural ordinary sense. Therefore, actual imprisonment for a period exceeding forty eight hours is necessary for the deeming suspension to take effect. Therefore, a Government servant shall be deemed to be placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority when the following conditions are satisfied:-
(i)that he has been convicted for an offence:
(ii)that he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours;
(iii)that he was actually imprisoned after conviction, for a total period exceeding forty-eight hours, whether continuous or intermittent, and NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 9 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016
(iv) that he was not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.
7. For the suspension to take place under Rule 10(2)(b) of the Rules, no order by the appointing authority is needed. Suspension is automatic on fulfillment of the aforesaid four conditions. But the deemed suspension comes into effect retrospectively from the date of conviction. As this is the clear effect of the statutory provision, it cannot be interpreted otherwise on the ground that the functioning of the Government servant before the deeming suspension is likely to be regarded as unauthorised. We do not consider it necessary to pronounce on the effect of deemed retrospective suspension, on the functions discharged by the Government servant before such suspension as that question has not arisen for consideration. The decisions in P. S. Chawla's case and D. Krishnamoorthy's ease, it is enough to say that they are right to the extent that they are consistent with the view which we have taken.
8. We consider it necessary to observe that even in cases where the conditions for deemed suspension contemplated by Rule 10(2) of the Rules are not specified, it is open to the appropriate authority to keep the Government servant under suspension if the circumstances justify such a course of action, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10(1) of the Rules. Such suspension can only be prospective.
9. For the reasons stated above, our answer to the question referred to us is as follows:
"A Government servant convicted in criminal case and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours, who is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction and is on bail pending the disposal of an appeal against his conviction can be deemed to have been placed under suspension under Rule 10(2)(b) of the Rules read with the explanation on his being actually imprisoned for a total period exceeding forty-eight hours whether continuous or intermittent"
12. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 11149/2009 (supra), under challenge was an order/judgment dated 29.04.2009 of this Tribunal in OA No. 1257/2008 vide which the Tribunal had allowed the OA. The facts were that the respondent, Sh. Loona was convicted pursuant to an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Learned Special Judge, Ambala. The learned Special NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 10 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 Judge then stayed the sentence for a period of one month to enable him to file an appeal. In the said appeal, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had stayed the operation of the sentence till disposal of the appeal. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment decided on 20.07.2010 in OA No. 1257/2008, the Tribunal has held as under:
"20. A sentence alone is also not relevant but if it exceeds 48 hours. Accordingly, when this imprisonment has to be reckoned for the purpose of 48 hours has been clarified and explained by way of explanation, according to which, the computation of imprisonment after the conviction would be from commencement of the imprisonment, which include intermittent period of imprisonment, if any, to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, if we deem the explanation as part and parcel of Rule 10(b) then it is only the commencement of imprisonment 48 hours are to be reckoned.
21. In legal parlance, commencement of imprisonment would be when the government servant pursuant to his conviction is sent to judicial custody to undergo the term of sentence. However, in a situation where this sentence to a term of imprisonment has been suspended by the trial court and thereafter by the appellate Court in continuation it cannot be legally inferred that a government servant on his conviction has remained under imprisonment and this imprisonment has not yet commenced for the purpose of reckoning 48 hours."
12.1. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgment dated 01.02.2023 under reference has ruled in paragraph 19 and 20 as under:
"19. We have already stated that, though the respondent was convicted, his sentence was stayed by the Special Judge, which was continued by the High Court. In that sentence, upon conviction by the Special Judge, he was not imprisoned/detained. If seen in this background, Rule 10(2)(b) contemplates that the government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. date of his conviction, if in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours. The explanation clarifies the position that the period of 48 hours referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule 2 shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account.
NEHA Digitally signed by
NEHA SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.12.16
15:29:28+05'30'
11
Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with
OA No. 2821/2016
20. Having noted the rule, we agree with the finding of the Tribunal, more particularly in paragraphs 20 and 21, which we have already reproduced above."
13. From the facts recorded above, it is apparent that though the applicant was convicted on 14.12.2012, however in view of the interim order of bail passed by the Learned Trial Court for the applicant's bail and thereafter, regular bail granted and stay of the sentence granted by the Hon'ble High Court in favour of the applicant, the applicant had not undergone imprisonment for even a single day.
14. In view of the facts noted above and the authoritative pronouncements of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Animesh Sengupta (supra) and further by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kewal Krishan Loona (supra), the present OA deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed with the following orders:
(i) impugned order dated 12.08.2013 qua suspension of the applicant is set aside;
(ii) the impugned appellate order dated 06.08.2015 to the extent the same ignores/rejects the applicant's appeal against order dated 12.08.2013 of his suspension, is set aside.
NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 12 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016
(iii) the applicant shall be entitled for grant of consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules, instructions and law on the subject
(iv) the aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
OA No. 2821/2016
By way of OA No. 2821/2016, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"1. The impugned dismissal order C.No. VIII(Cus. Prev.) CIU/27/14/13/896 dated 11-11-2013 passed by the Respondent No. 2 be quashed/set aside;
2. The impugned Appellate order F.No. CCPU(DZ) OIO/RC/289/2013/Pt./10907 Dated 06-08-2015 passed by the Respondent No. 3 be quashed/set aside;
3. The Applicant be treated on duty up to the date of his reinstatement, if so ordered, since he was suspended on 12-8-2013 with all consequential benefits, including but not confined to Tuition Fees, Bonus, arrears of DA etc.;
4. Pass any other order or direction in favour of the applicant, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; and
5. Allow the OA with costs."
2. In support of the claim of the applicant in OA No. 2821/2016, it is argued that in the show cause notice issued to the applicant, before passing the order of dismissal, it is not NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 13 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 indicated as to applicant's which conduct had led to the issuance of the show cause notice and therefore, there is violation of the provisions of Rule 19(1) of the Rules and the impugned order of dismissal is bad in law.
3. Though in paragraph 5 of the OA, a few judgments have also been referred to by the applicant, in support of his claim, none of them have been pressed or shown as to how the same support the claim of the applicant.
4. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, it has been pleaded that in the show cause notice dated 12.08.2013, reference of the necessary details of the relevant case and sentence have been given by the respondents and in view thereof, the competent authority has also indicated about its provisional conclusion that the applicant is not a fit person to be retained in service and the gravity of the charge against him warrants imposition of major penalty and as such authority has proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement from service.
5. It is also pleaded that the impugned orders of dismissal which have been passed by the competent authority which clearly indicate application of mind therefore, the same do not NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 14 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 warrant any interference by this Tribunal. They submit that the OA deserves to be dismissed. In support of their contention, the respondents have placed reliance on an order/judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Shri Ramesh Kumar dated 02.09.1997.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
7. It is undisputed that the applicant has been convicted by the learned Special CBI Court under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Though the applicant has been granted bail and the sentence has been stayed, however, the fact remains that the allegations against him have been serious in nature. The applicant had been served a show cause notice with the contents as precisely recorded hereinabove and such conviction has not been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court.
8. In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), under challenge was an order dated 02.03.1990 of this Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had set aside the order of dismissal with further direction that the period beginning from the date of dismissal NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 15 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 of the respondent till the disposal of the criminal appeal filed in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, be treated as period of suspension for which the respondent would be entitled to get normal subsistence allowance with the relevant rules. The respondent in the said case while working as Inspector in Food & Civil Supplies was convicted by the Learned Special Sub Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to further undergo six months imprisonment. The appellants had dismissed the respondent from service under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with the provisions of the Vigilance Manual. Simultaneously, the respondent had filed a criminal appeal, along with a prayer for bail against conviction and sentence and the Hon'ble Court pending hearing of the appeal suspended the execution of the sentence and ordered for release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. After considering the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules, the NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:29:28+05'30' 16 Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with OA No. 2821/2016 Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Ramesh Kumar (supra) as under:
"A bare reading of Rule 19 shows that the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to take action against a Govt. servant on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. The rules, however, do not provide that on suspension of execution of sentences by the Appellate Court the order of dismissal based on conviction stands obliterated and dismissed Govt. servant has to be treated under suspension till disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court filed by Govt. servant for talking action against him on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by competent Court of law. Having regard to the provisions of the rules, the order dismissing the respondent from service on the ground of misconduct leading to his conviction by a component Court of law has not lost its string merely. Because a criminal appeal was filled by the respondent against his conviction and the Appellant Court has suspended the execution of sentence and enlarged the respondent on bail. This matter may be examined from another angles. Under Section 389 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Court has power to suspend the of sentence and to release an accused on bail. When the appellant Court suspends the execution of sentences, and grants bail to an accused the effect of the order is that sentence based on conviction is for the time being postponed, or kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. In other words, by suspension of execution of sentence under section 389 Cr.P.C an accused avoids undergoing sentences pending criminal appeal. However, the conviction continues and is not obliterated and if the conviction is not obliterated, any action taken against a Govt. servant on a misconduct which led to his conviction by the Court of Law does not lose its efficacy merely because Appellant Court has suspended the execution of sentence. Such being the position of law, the Administrative Tribunal fell in error in holding that by suspension of execution of sentence by the appellate Court, the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was liable to be quashed and the respondent is to be treated under suspension till the disposal of Criminal Appeal by the High Court."
(emphasis supplied)
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar (supra), the captioned OA deserves to be dismissed and we order accordingly.
NEHA Digitally signed by
NEHA SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.12.16
15:29:28+05'30'
17
Court-2 OA No. 3253/2016 with
OA No. 2821/2016
10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/
NEHA Digitally signed by
NEHA SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.12.16
15:29:28+05'30'