Tripura High Court
Sri Ankur Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 8 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 TRI 172
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 1039/2018
Sri Ankur Debnath,
S/O Sri Ranjit Debnath, resident of Dhaleswar, Water Supply road,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura
..... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
Represented by its Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
Animal Resource Development Department, Government of Tripura,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
2. The Joint Secretary
Animal Resource Development Department, Government of Tripura,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
3. The Director
Animal Resource Development Department, Government of Tripura,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Choudhuri, GA
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 08.01.2019
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (Oral)
08.01.2019
Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents.
2. The facts of the writ petition, in a nutshell, are that the writ petitioner is a Veterinary Officer (TVS, Grade V) under the State-respondents and while he was discharging his duties at Page 2 of 5 Nalkata Pig breeding firm, Dhalai District, he was placed under suspension by order dated 12.04.2018 vide memorandum no. F.7-2/ARDD/DIL/FVR/ 17/745-47 issued by the respondent no.2.
3. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought on record many facts in the writ petition but, after considering all aspects, this court is of the opinion that the seminal issue to be determined in the writ petition is whether the suspension order be continued, if not reviewed before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension in view of Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel prays for setting aside the suspension order along with regularization of the service of the petitioner during the period of his suspension.
4. For the purpose of effectively deciding the issue raised in this writ petition, the provision of sub-rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are set out hereunder:
"10. Suspension-
(1) .....
(2) .....
(3) .....
(4) .....
(5) .....
(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. (7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days:
Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later." Page 3 of 5
5. It is worthy to mention here that Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was amended by notification dated 23.12.2003 when sub-rules (6) and (7) in the said Rule were inserted. The amendment brought in by the legislature casts an obligation upon the appointing authority to constitute a committee and review the matter whether the extension of the suspension period is a necessity in respect of a particular delinquent who is put under suspension.
6. Indisputably, the suspension order of the writ petitioner was not reviewed extending the period till filing of the writ petition before this court, though, the period of 90 days was expired on 11.07.2018 and even no review committee was constituted before the expiry of 90 days. It is revealed that already over 6(six) months has been elapsed after expiry of 90(ninety) days i.e. from 11.07.2018.
7. The Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222 while examining the sub-rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in cases where the competent authority has failed to constitute a review committee and no review of the order of suspension was made, has observed thus:
"10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the Respondent and when the Petitioner's case came up for review on 20th October, 2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of Sub- rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under Sub- rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days".Page 4 of 5
8. Similar proposition was made by a division bench of Calcutta High Court in Abanindra Mohanty vs. Union of India and others reported in MANU/WB/0602/2010: (2010) 4 CALLT 205(HC) that review is required to be made in terms of sub-rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, and the order of suspension is lapsed after expiry of the period of 90 days from the effective date of the order of suspension.
9. The submission of Mr. N. Choudhury, learned GA appearing for the State-respondents admitting the fact that the suspension order is not reviewed, but, the respondents want to continue the suspension order of the petitioner till the disciplinary proceeding is complete. Learned GA further submits that already an inquiry has been conducted and the report has been submitted to the competent authority.
10. This court is not at all convinced with the submission of the learned GA.
11. The legislature with a definite object to achieve has inserted the words "before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension", whereby the relevant law [sub-rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965] has further been clarified that before expiry of the period of 90 days from the effective date of suspension, the competent authority is under a mandatory obligation to constitute a review committee and review the matter as to whether the extension of the suspension period is at all necessary.
12. Indisputably, in the case at hand, the case of the writ petitioner was never placed before a constituted committee to Page 5 of 5 review the extension of the suspension order and, therefore, by operation of the statute in terms of sub-rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the order of suspension had lapsed after expiry of a period of 90 days. Automatically, the continuation of the suspension period after expiry of 90 days i.e. on and from 12.07.2018 stands invalid.
13. Another important aspect, is that, merely putting an employee under suspension, government will not get any fruitful benefit unless the situation is so compelling, and in my considered view, it would be better for the government to utilize his service rather than paying him suspension allowance without getting any service from him.
14. Consequently, the writ petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service and he is entitled to get all the service benefits in terms of the relevant rules, particularly, stipulated under F.R. 53.
15. Having viewed so, the suspension order dated 12.04.2018 is interfered with and the same is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. However, it is made clear that liberty is always reserved with the State- respondents to proceed with disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, if they so desire, in accordance with law.
16. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the present writ petition is allowed and stands disposed.
JUDGE Saikat