Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S R Goyal vs Govt. Of National Capital Territory Of ... on 24 February, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1564/2009 This the 24th day of February 2010 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) S R Goyal Retired DANICS officer Under Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Son of Shri R D Goyal) r/o 56-A Suraj Nagar Near Azadpur, Delhi-33 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus 1. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi through the Chief Secretary Delhi Sachivalya, IP Estate N Delhi-2 2. The Secretary (Services) Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Secretariat, IP Estate New Delhi 3. The Joint Secretary (Union Territory Delhi) Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi 4. Dean/Medical Superintendent, Maulana Azad Medical College Govt. of NCT of Delhi Delhi Gate, Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocates: Shri Vijay Pandita and Shri A.K. Singh) O R D E R
Shri Shanker Raju:
Applicant, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006, by virtue of this OA, impugns respondents order dated 8.8.2006 whereby the original order of suspension effected on 10.5.2006 has been reviewed, with grant of all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for applicant states that the applicant was placed under suspension on 10.5.2006. As such, his suspension should have been continued on review by an order passed within 90 days, i.e., upto 7.8.2006. Once the same has done on 8.8.2006, Govt. of NCT of Delhis instructions, which adopted DOPTs instructions dated 7.1.2004 are being violated and the impugned orders are bad in law, for which a reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision in S.K. Srivastava v. Union of India & others, 2009 (3) SLJ (CAT-FB) 387.
3. Learned counsel would also contend that though the applicants appointing authority is Lt. Governor, who issued the order of suspension, yet a review has been done by the Chief Secretary and being on ad hoc basis as a DANICS officer, his appointing authority is Lt. Governor, which has been disclosed under RTI that the Lt. Governor is the authority competent to review the suspension. As the same has been done by an incompetent authority, it vitiates the impugned orders.
4. Learned counsel relies upon the identical case of another ad hoc DANICS officer Shri Yog Raj in whose case the review has been done on approval by the Lt. Governor.
5. Accordingly, it is stated that once the order has not been passed by the Lt. Governor, on both counts suspension is void ab initio, being null and void.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and by relying upon Part II of Schedule of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, it is stated that the appointing authority in Delhi Administration is Chief Secretary. It is also stated that the post held by the applicant on ad hoc basis since not being encadred in DANICS, he has no justifiable grounds to challenge.
7. Learned counsel for respondents contended that what is required within 90 days in case of suspension is a review by the Committee before 90 days and since it has been done on 7.8.2006, the order passed extending the suspension cannot be found fault with.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
9. The stand of the respondents that on 5.10.2004, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on MHAs order dated 29.9.2004 ordered for constitution of review committee, which comprises of Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary and Director (Vigilance) and their resort to CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 cannot be countenanced in law, as in case of one Yogi Raj, who was also an ad hoc DANICS officer, the review of suspension has been done on the approval of Lt. Governor, which when not being followed in the instant case, the applicant having held even on ad hoc basis in DANICS, Delhi Administration has nothing to do and Chief Secretary, who is the competent within his jurisdiction to act as an appointing authority of all officers subordinate and applicant not being in his administrative control, non-approval of the review by the competent appointing authority, i.e., Lt. Governor, order extending the suspension is coram non judice and is nullity in law.
10. As regards the suspension in the light of Full Bench decision and keeping in light Rules 10 (6) and 10 (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which were amended vide notification dated 23.12.2003, the suspension deemed to have been made or otherwise the suspension on a recommendation of the reviewing authority, an order is to be passed extending the suspension within a period of 90 days. The words extended after review under Rules 10 (6) and 10 (7) of the rules ibid clearly signify that mere holding of review committee would not suffice within 90 days. An order following the review shall be passed to extend the suspension, as in the instant case the review committee meeting was held on 7.8.2006, i.e., on 90th day and an order extending the review has since been passed on 91st day, i.e., on 8.8.2006 an order earlier resorted to has become invalid. The decision in S.K. Srivastava (supra), in all fours, covers the present issue.
11. We also find from the record that many officers, like Shri R K Srivastava, Shri J S Sidhu, Shri Rakesh Bhatanagar and others, who have been similarly involved in criminal case, have since not been placed under suspension, an invidious discrimination is meted out to the applicant without any justification in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. Resultantly, OA is allowed to the extent the impugned orders are set aside. Consequences to follow in law. However, the impugned orders have been passed much before the date of superannuation, respondents are at liberty, if so advised, to resort to suspension. In such an event, law shall take its own course. No costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/