Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Tuntun Mehto vs Member (Administration) on 31 January, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
O.A.No.3898/2012
Order reserved on 21st January 2014
Order pronounced on 31st January 2014
Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)
Tuntun Mehto
s/o Mr. Bankey Lal Mehto
r/o House No.RZC 3/12
Mahavir Enclave, Part I
New Delhi-45
. Applicant
(through Mr. H P Chakravorty, Advocate)
Versus
1. Member (Administration)
Delhi Jal Board
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Varunalaya Building, Phase II
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5
2. Joint Director (Vigilance)
Delhi Jal Board
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Varunalaya Building, Phase II
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5
3. Executive Engineer (E&M) WS
Delhi Jal Board
West Janakpuri
New Delhi-64
. Respondents
(through Mr. Nishakant Pandey, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj In the present original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has questioned the orders dated 5.5.2011, 3.8.2011, 1.11.2011, 23.1.2012, 30.4.2012, 25.7.2012 and 23.10.2012, i.e., the orders of extension of his suspension, issued from time to time. He has also sought the consequential relief of reinstatement in service. A further prayer made in the original application is for issuance of direction not to invoke the provisions of Rule 19 (1) of Discipline Rules till the decision of the Government of Bihar is received. According to him, the Government of Bihar is considering implementing the directions of the Honble High Court of Judicature of Patna issued in CWJC No.12334/2009 dated 20.4.2010, which has bearing on his case.
2. Mr. H.P. Chakravorty, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the charge against the applicant in the criminal case is not such that he should have been kept under suspension for a long period of almost four years. He also submitted that the order of suspension has become revokable in view of Rule 10 (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Though in the grounds taken in the original application it is also the stand of the applicant that he has not committed any misconduct and is not in a position to influence the proceedings before the CBI, during the course of the arguments such grounds are not pressed.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Nishakant Pandey, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the order of suspension of the applicant dated 23.10.2012 has been reviewed from time to time in accordance with the rules and the applicant has made an attempt to mislead this Tribunal. According to him, the plea of the applicant that the suspension was reviewed after 9.8.2010 is not correct, as the same is reviewed from time to time and the relevant orders in this regard are enclosed by the applicant himself along with his original application.
4. Regarding the disciplinary action against the applicant, it is stated in paragraph 4 of the counter reply that the applicant is placed under suspension in view of the filing of the charge sheet by the CBI.
5. Relying upon the Chapter II of Personnel Policies (Annexure R-3colly.), learned counsel for respondents submitted that in the event of charge sheet accusing a government servant of specific acts of corruption or any other offence involving moral turpitude has been filed in a Criminal Court, the applicant should be placed under suspension after filing of the charge sheet. Relevant excerpt of the said Policies reads as under:-
(iii) In a case where a charge sheet accusing a Govt. servant of specific acts of corruption or any other offence involving moral turpitude has been filed in a Criminal Court,- immediately after the filing of the charge sheet.
6. According to him, once the charge sheet filed against the applicant in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi contained the allegations under Sections 420/471, his suspension cannot be considered unjustified.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. Though it is the stand taken by the applicant in the original application that in terms of the sub-rule 7 of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the order of suspension has become invalid, it is not clear that what is the basis of such plea raised by him. When the order of the suspension is dated 23.3.2010, in normal course the review was due on 23.6.2010, but the plea raised in the original application is that it became invalid after 9.8.2010.
9. As far as the plea of non-review dated 9.8.2010 is concerned, the respondents have placed on record the order dated 10.8.2010 wherein it is mentioned that in the meeting of the review committee dated 3.8.2010 the suspension was extended for further 90 days. For easy reference, the said order (Annexure R-1) is extracted hereinbelow:-
Order 270 Whereas Shri Tuntun Mahto s/o Sh. Bankey Lal Mahto, APD was placed under suspension w.e.f. 23.3.10 by the Competent Authority vide order No.106 dt. 23.3.10.
Whereas his case of suspension has been considered by the Review Committee. The Review Committee in its meeting held on 03.8.2010 has recommended that the period of suspension m ay further be extended for 90 days.
And whereupon the Competent Authority, while accepting the recommendations of the Review Committee, has ordered to extend the period of suspension of Sh. Tuntun Mahto s/o Sh. Bankey Lal Mahto, APD for another 90 days w.e.f. 10.8.2010. He will also continue to get emoluments at existing rate.
10. Since there is no specific plea raised by the applicant that the order of suspension was not initially reviewed within 90 days after 23.3.2010, we are not in a position to take any view in this regard. As far as the validity of the order of suspension is concerned, a government servant may be placed under suspension under Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules:
a) when a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or
b) when a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial; or
c) when, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State
11. In the present case, it is not disputed that the applicant was placed under suspension on account of registration of a criminal case with CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi vide FIR No.RC-DAI- 2009-A-0050 dated 11.11.2009 under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 473 IPC and filing of the charge sheet against him in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi under Sections 420 and 471 IPC, thus we find no force in the plea of the applicant that no action ought to have been taken against him under Rule 19 (1) of Discipline Rules.
12. Regarding the circumstances in which suspension should be resorted to, it is well settled that an order of suspension shall not be made in perfunctory or in a routine and casual manner without proper regard to the guiding principles and where no public interest is involved. Suspension may not be resorted to for petty offences unrelated to the government duties. As has been mentioned in the aforementioned guidelines placed on record by the respondents along with the reply, in a case where the charge sheet accusing a government servant of specific act of involving in moral turpitude has been filed in a Criminal Court immediately, after filing the charge sheet he need to be placed under suspension. Also in paragraph 2.5, Chapter V of the Vigilance Manual, Volume I, it is laid down that it may be considered desirable to suspend a public servant for misdemeanor of the following types:
i) an offence or conduct involving moral turpitude,
ii) corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money, possession of disproportionate assets, misuse of official powers for personal gains,
iii) serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in considerable loss to Government,
iv) desertion of duty; and
v) refusal or deliberate failure to carry out written orders of superiors officers.
13. In the circumstances, it may not be viewed that the action taken by the respondents under Rule 10 (1) CCS (CCA) Rules is unjustified. Nevertheless, the suspension pending departmental inquiry is a safeguard against the government servant interfering with and hampering the preliminary investigation and tampering with material evidence oral and documentary. In case of involvement in criminal proceedings, the charges are usually of moral turpitude. It would not be proper to allow the person facing charge of moral turpitude to work as a public servant, unless there are exceptional reasons for not resorting to suspension. Suspension is also ordered as a deterrent to exhibit the firm determination of the Government to root out corruption or other grave misconduct. In the present, maybe the applicant will not be in a position to hamper the trial, but certainly the charge against him is of moral turpitude. We could also find that in the meeting dated 13.1.2014, the Suspension Review Committee took a general view regarding continuance of suspension of employees. The minutes recorded in the said meeting read thus:
A meeting of Suspension Review Committee was held in the chamber of CEO (DJB) on 13.01.2014 to review the cases of suspension of Group D employees.
Recommendations are based on the decision taken in this meeting by the Committee that employees involved in the cases related to corruption, embezzlement, loss (in any form) to DJB, fake certificates be not reinstated, whereas employees involved in serious criminal cases not related to DJB and under suspension for more than 05 years be reinstated and for such employees as are under suspension for more than 03 years their subsistence allowance be increased to 75%, if not done already.
The minutes/recommendations of the Committee are placed alongside for approval and signatures please.
14. We also find that on 20.1.2014 again the respondents have taken a view to extend the suspension of the applicant for another period of 90 days. We find sufficient force in the plea of the respondents that the reinstatement of the applicant against whom the criminal charge under Sections 420/471 IPC is pending, would send a wrong signal to the society and public. Nevertheless, the disciplinary authority may always explore the possibilities to utilize the services of an employee, who is paid 75% of pay as subsistence allowance in public interest.
15. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to explore the possibilities at the time of next review regarding utilization of the services of the applicant by reinstating him in such a manner that it may not send a wrong signal to other employees that a person against whom the criminal case is pending can be reinstated. Such a consideration may be only to upkeep the public interest. Nevertheless, in the event of there being any iota of apprehension that revocation of the suspension of the applicant would hamper one of its object and purpose, i.e., deterrent to exhibit the firm determination of the Government to root out corruption or other grave misconduct, the authority would be justified in continuing the suspension of the applicant till conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
16. Subject to aforesaid observations, the original application is dismissed. No costs.
( V. N. Gaur ) ( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/