Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikash Kumar vs M/O Finance on 20 May, 2022
1 OA No. 1543/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1543/2021
Reserved on: 26.04.2022
Pronounced on: 20.05.2022
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Vikash Kumar
DOB : 09.01.1980, Age: 41 years
S/o Sh. Bagishwar Sharma
Permanent R/o Bagishwar Sharma
Village & Post-Kaswan
District Jahanabad, Bihar-804429
Working as Deputy Commissioner
(Under Suspension)
Office of Chief Commissioner of CGST,
Bhubaneswar, C.R. Building (GST Bhawan)
Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751007.
.. Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. R.V. Sinha)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
(Through: The Secretary)
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief Commissioner of CGST,
Bhuwaneshwar, C.R. Building (GST Bhawan)
Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha-751007.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Y.P. Singh)
2 OA No. 1543/2021
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd Jamshed, Member (A) The applicant is an Indian Revenue Service Officer and joined as Assistant Commissioner in June, 2011. He was subsequently promoted as Deputy Commissioner in 2014. In 2017, while he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Haldia, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.11.2017 on the ground of contemplated major penalty departmental proceedings against him. Subsequently, the respondents issued orders extending his suspension. Aggrieved by the continued suspension, the applicant filed O.A. No. 3505/2018 challenging these suspension orders. The O.A. was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 14.12.2018. The suspension of the applicant continued to be extended from time to time. Vide order dated 13.08.2020, he was also transferred under CGST Commissionerate, Bhubaneshwar from Kolkata Zone, with direction that he be posted in a non-sensitive post. The applicant feeling aggrieved by the continued suspension, has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"(a) call for the relevant file(s)/record(s) of the Respondents and peruse the same;
(b) hold and declare the extension of suspension vide letter dated 31.01.2019, 29.07.2019, 30.01.2020, 24.07.2020, 19.01.2021 & 15.07.2021 [Annexure A-1 Impugned Colly)] and any subsequent order based on such impugned orders continuing the suspension of the applicant as illegal, arbitrary and 3 OA No. 1543/2021 discriminatory and consequently quash/revoke/set aside the same;
(c) hold and declare that the continued and prolonged suspension of the applicant is arbitrary, illegal and void ab-initio;
(d) in consequence of the prayer above in para (b to c) above, hold and declare that the applicant is entitled for reinstatement in service with immediate effect and further that he is deemed to have been reinstated in service w.e.f. 31.01.2019 which was passed by the Respondents after the judgment and order dated 14.12.2018, illegally;
(e) Hold and declare that the applicant herein is entitled for full pay and allowances at least from 31.01.2019 and accordingly appropriate direction to the respondent to pay the difference between the salary and subsistence allowance paid with interest thereon @ 12% per month till payment;
(f) Award cost of this application and proceedings against the Respondents and in favour of the Applicant;
(g) May also pass further order(s) as deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."
The applicant is primarily seeking quashing and setting aside of various extension of suspension orders, with directions to the respondents that he should be reinstated and the difference between the salary and subsistence allowance be paid with 12% interest per month till the payment.
2. The applicant contends that his continued suspension without issuance of a charge sheet for last many years is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied upon a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are as under:
4 OA No. 1543/2021
(a) State of H.P. Vs. B.C. Thakur, 1994 SCC (L&S) 835.
(b) Union of India & Others Vs. Raj Kishore Parija, 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 235.
(c) O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1987 (4) SCC
328.
(d) Samiran Chakrabarty Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1992 SCC Online Cal 52.
(e) Allahabad Bank Vs. Sandipta Gangopadhyay, 2019 SCC Online Cal 2717.
(f) Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (1978) 1 SCC 405, decided on 02.12.1977.
(g) Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Anr., 2015 (7) SCC 291.
(h) Order/judgment dated 22.03.2016 of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No.10701/2016, titled S. Vijaykumar Vs. Principal Secretary/Transport Commissioner, Chepauk.
(i) Order/judgment dated 17.11.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. (MD) No.3997/2016 and WPMP (MD) No.3590/2016 titled J John De Britto Vs. The District Collector, Dindigul District".
(j) Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.A. Sari, 2017 SCC Online Ker 3575.
(k) K. Padma Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2017 SCC Online Ker 39978.
(l) Union of India Vs. B. Anil Kumar, 2017 SCC Online Ker 31390.
(m) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Promod Kumar, IPS, AIR 2018 SC 4060.
(n) Sandipta Gangopadhyay Vs. Allahabad Bank, 2015 SCC Online CAL 3894.
(o) Gulshan Choudhary Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, 2017 SCC Online J&K 284.
(p) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Vijay Kumar Jha, 2016 SCC Online Del 4167.
5 OA No. 1543/2021
3. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit opposing the O.A. It is submitted that arising out of a DRI investigation in 2016, various cases of smuggling, fraud and anti- departmental activities were observed and certain departmental officers, including the applicant, were issued show cause notices. It is submitted that the investigation conducted by the CBI revealed the involvements of the applicant in smuggling activities and activities against the departmental interest. He was made co-noticee in the supplementary Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2017. Various other allegations including those under PC Act etc. were also highlighted showing involvement of the applicant. Keeping in view these serious charges against the applicant, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.11.2017 pending major penalty departmental proceedings contemplated against him. The suspension was further extended from time to time by the Suspension Review Committee in view of the ongoing investigations by the CBI. Subsequently, a proposal for launching prosecution against the applicant was also forwarded by the Chief Commissioner vide letter dated 06.11.2018 to CBIC, New Delhi, in connection with a case of smuggling of gold through NSCBI Airport, Kolkata. It is submitted that at the time the counter reply has been filed, charge memorandum is under submission to the Disciplinary Authority. Further, the applicant was arrested on 02.11.2020 6 OA No. 1543/2021 and was remanded to judicial custody till 18.11.2020. He was released on bail on 29.12.2020. The CBI has completed its investigation in RC 010 2017 A 0035 and recommended RDA for major penalty. Another case has been registered by the CBI against the applicant.
4. The respondents have also relied upon a number of judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.09.2017 in WP(C) No. 8134/2017 & CM No. 33423/2017 in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Dr. Rishi Anand and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr., (2015) 7 SCC 291. It is submitted that in view of serious charges, allegations and pending investigations against the applicant, it is in the interest of the Department that his suspension is continued. Extension of suspension is being timely reviewed by the Review Committee as per the extent guidelines.
5. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating the averments made in the O.A. along with other judgments, including the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 503/2020, titled Sandeep Jot Singh vs. Union of India and Anr., and the following judgments:
7 OA No. 1543/2021
(i) Order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15225/2020;
(ii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Ashiquzzaman, reported as 2020 SCC Online Ori 550; and
(iii) Order/judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 260/617/2019 and 260/693/2019.
6. Heard Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Y.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondents; and perused the pleadings and judgments placed on record.
7. Written submissions provided by the learned counsel for the applicant and respondents were taken on record.
8. The applicant joined Indian Revenue Service in 2011 and was subsequently promoted as Deputy Commissioner on 18.07.2014. During various investigations conducted by DRI, he was placed under suspension after having been issued a Show Cause Notice vide order dated 10.11.2017. The applicant's suspension has been extended from time to time by the Suspension Review Committee.
9. This is the 2nd round of litigation. The applicant aggrieved by the extension of suspension orders, had filed O.A. 8 OA No. 1543/2021 No. 3505/2018. This Tribunal dismissed the O.A. vide order dated 14.12.2018, which reads as under:
"26. The endeavor of Hon'ble Supreme Court, for decades together was to ensure transparency in Government services and public life, and even new statutory agencies, like CVC, have been brought into existence in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court. Radical changes were brought as regards the functioning of CBI is to ensure that no laxity is exhibited in the context of dealing with the cases where allegations of corruption or misconduct of serious nature exist. The applicant is facing serious allegations. Whatever be the reasons for default in issuing charge sheet, that should not become an advantage for the applicant to get reinstated into service.
27. We, therefore, dismiss the OA. However, we direct that the respondents shall make endeavour to file the charge memo within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and when the Suspension Review Committee meets next, it shall specifically address the question as to whether it is desirable at all to continue the suspension, and whether the interests of the State and of the applicant would be served in case he is transferred to any other place by reinstating him. There shall be no order as to costs. "
10. The applicant was not satisfied with these orders. His suspension was, in the meanwhile, continued to be extended by the Competent Authority from time to time. He was allegedly found involved in smuggling activities, alleged bribe taking, frauds etc. It is also a fact that the applicant was arrested by the CBI on 02.11.2020 and was sent to judicial custody till 18.11.2020. He was subsequently granted bail. The CBI completed its investigation in RC No. 010 2017 A 0035 and vide report dated 31.03.2021 and recommended Regular Departmental Action for major penalty against the applicant. In another case, CBI has completed its investigation (RC No. 9 OA No. 1543/2021 010 2017 A 0034) and vide report dated 31.03.2021, proposed launching of criminal prosecution against the applicant. It has been confirmed by the respondents that the CBI as well as Director General of Vigilance have completed their investigations. The Department in agreement with CVC advise dated 28.12.2021 is in advance stage for sanction of prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act and initiation of departmental proceedings against the applicant in fraudulent export of Duty drawback and export of Red Sanders cases. Further, departmental proceedings are contemplated in consultation with the CVC in case of systematic smuggling of restricted/prohibited goods through Cargo Shed of NSCBI, Airport, Kolkata booked by SIIB, Air Cargo Complex, Kolkata, Air Cargo Complex, NSCBI Airport, Kolkata during 2017 in consultation with CVC vide O.M. dated 01/05.10.2020. Considering the involvement of the applicant in smuggling activity, penalty of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs only) under Section 112 (a) and 112 (b) and also Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs only) under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 was imposed on the applicant. Sanction of Competent Authority for prosecuting the applicant under Customs Act, 1962 has been conveyed by Commissioner (Inv-Cus) to Commissioner of Customs(Prev.), Kolkata vide letter dated 07.01.2021. Apart from above, as per records available with the Department, out of five proposals for launching prosecution 10 OA No. 1543/2021 under Customs Act, 1962, against the applicant, prosecution sanction in four cases have already been given by the Competent Authority.
11. From the above, it is evident that the applicant is involved in various cases, including CBI and Vigilance. On completion of investigations, major penalty charge sheets are contemplated, not in one but in many cases. It brings us to the moot point that has been raised in this O.A., which is non- issuance of a charge sheet and continued suspension. Basically whether suspension of the applicant can be continued beyond 90 days, if no charge sheet has been issued.
12. The applicant has relied upon many judgments in support of his arguments. This subject matter has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also by the Hon'ble High Court in different cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary & Anr. (supra) has been primarily relied upon. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 8134/2017 and CM No. 33423/2017 has considered the same. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:
"18. The direction issued by the Supreme Court is that the currency of the suspension should not be extended beyond three months, if the charge memorandum/ charge-sheet is not issued within the period of 3 months of suspension. But it does not say that if, as a matter of fact, it is so extended it would be null and void and of no effect. The power of the competent authority to pass orders under Rule 10(6) of the 11 OA No. 1543/2021 CCS (CCA) Rules extending the suspension has not been extinguished by the Supreme Court. The said power can be exercised if good reasons therefor are forthcoming.
19. The decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) itself shows that there cannot be a hard and fast rule in this regard. If that were so, the Supreme Court would have quashed the suspension of Ajay Kumar Choudhary. However, in view of the fact that the charge memo had been issued to Ajay Kumar Choudhary - though after nearly three years of his initial suspension, the Supreme Court held that the directions issued by it would not be relevant to his case.
20. From a reading of the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it emerges that the government is obliged to record its reasons for extension of the suspension which, if assailed, would be open to judicial scrutiny - not as in an appeal, but on grounds available in law for judicial review of administrative action.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the charge sheet/ charge memo was not served on the respondent within the initial 90 days of suspension, the suspension of the respondent automatically lapsed. Under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, there is no automatic reinstatement of a suspended government servant upon expiry of 90 days, or the extended period of suspension if, by the date of expiry of such suspension/ extended period of suspension, the charge sheet is not issued. The only circumstance in which the suspension of the government servant lapses automatically is the one contained in sub- rule (7) of Rule 10. The same reads as under:
"(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." (Emphasis supplied)
22. Thus, it is only if the suspension is not extended after review within the initial period of 90 days (in a case to which sub-rule (2) does not apply), that the suspension of the government servant would lapse automatically. In all other cases, the suspension would continue unless and until 12 OA No. 1543/2021 it is modified or revoked by the competent authority though it would not imply that there is no requirement to conduct periodic renewal of the suspension. This is so provided in sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 10, which reads as follows:
"10 (5)(a) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Thus, there is no force in the submission of the respondent that the suspension of the respondent automatically lapsed since the charge sheet was not issued within the initial period of 90 days. Pertinently, the respondents suspension was reviewed and extended by the government within the initial period of 90 days on 27.09.2016. Thus, the suspension of the respondent did not lapse under sub rule (7) of Rule 10 CCS (CCA) Rules.
24. We are of the considered view that in the facts of the present case, the impugned order was certainly not called for, revoking the suspension of the respondent. When the O.A. was preferred, the charge sheet had already been issued to the respondent on 01.03.2017. At the highest, the tribunal could have called upon the petitioner to justify its extension by passing a reasoned order. It was not for the tribunal to step into the shoes of the administration, and to take a decision - which only the administration can take, on the issue whether the suspension of the charged officer should continue, or not. The jurisdiction of the tribunal is confined to examining the administrative action of the government on the well established objective principles of judicial review and, where it considers necessary, to require the government to perform its statutory obligation to take a decision. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.
25. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not paying any subsistence allowance to the respondent. This position cannot be allowed to continue. The petitioner is directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the respondent under the rules as admissible to him along with arrears. The arrears shall be paid within four weeks from today and the payment of subsistence allowance shall be commenced forthwith".
13. In a detailed order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3505/2018 also, similar view has been taken. Relevant paras are as under:
13 OA No. 1543/2021
"21. It was held in Dr. Rishi Anand's case that the very fact the observations of the Supreme Court that the suspension cannot be continued beyond 90 days in case no charge sheet is filed within that time, were not applied in that case; would lead to the conclusion that the said principle cannot be ascribed the status of ratio deci dendi.
22. Further, there would not have been any necessity for us to undertake any discussion on this aspect had Rule 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was interpreted or any portion of it was struck down, denuding the Government of the power to continue the suspension beyond 90 days if no charge sheet is filed.
23. The authority of a precedent and its binding nature is certainly high, when the issue decided therein is not covered by any provision of law or by an earlier precedent. The Courts subordinate to the one which authored the precedent, have to religiously follow it, till any legislation is made to the contrary, in accordance with law. If the issue is covered by a provision of law, the precedent would retain its strength, if the provision is taken into account and is interpreted. The judgment then becomes a guiding tool for the interpretation or understanding the provision of law.
24. It is not uncommon, though rare that, the attention of a Court is not drawn to the provision of law, and observations are made which do not accord with such provision. Situations of this nature are explained as under:-
"A precedent is not binding if it was rendered in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of statute, i.e., delegated legislation. This rule was laid down for the House of Lords by Lord Halsbury in the leading case (infra, 28), and for the Court of Appeal it was given as the leading example of a decision per incuriam which would not be binding on the court (x). The rule apparently applies even though the court knew of the statute in question, if it did not refer to, and had not present to its mind, the precise terms of the statute (y). Similarly, a court may know of the existence of a statute and yet not appreciate its relevance to the matter in hand; such a mistake is again such incuria as to vitiate the decision (z). Even a lower court can impugn a precedent on such grounds."
(See Salmond on Jurisprudence, Twelfth Edition- page
178) In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur AIR 1989 SC 38, the Honble Supreme Court held as under:-
"A decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute. We respectfully follow the same."14 OA No. 1543/2021
Obviously because of this principle, the Honble High Court has chosen to treat the principle contained in para 21 of Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case as obiter, when it decided Rishi Anand's case.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the binding nature of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case cannot be doubted. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The whole difficulty is in the context of discerning the binding principle, and in that behalf the Honble Delhi High Court has already undertaken an extensive exercise. Even by now, Rule 10 (7) remains in its original form, nor it was interpreted to mean something different. In Gurnam Kaur's case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court laid down the principles as regards the binding precedents that too in the context of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion reads as under:-
"11. Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the ratio decidendi are classed as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. With all respect to the learned Judge who passed the order in Jamna Das' case and to the learned Judge who agreed with him, we cannot concede that this Court is bound to follow it. It was delivered without argument, without reference to the relevant provisions of the Act conferring express power on the Municipal Corporation to direct removal of encroachments from any public place like pavement or public streets, and without any citation of authority. Accordingly, we do not propose to uphold the decision of the High Court because, it seems to us that it is wrong in principle and cannot be justified by the terms of the relevant provisions."
26. The endeavor of Hon'ble Supreme Court, for decades together was to ensure transparency in Government services and public life, and even new statutory agencies, like CVC, have been brought into existence in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court. Radical changes were brought as regards the functioning of CBI is to ensure that no laxity is exhibited in the context of dealing with the cases where allegations of corruption or misconduct of serious nature exist. The applicant is facing serious allegations. Whatever be the reasons for default in issuing charge sheet, that should not become an advantage for the applicant to get reinstated into service."
14. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in a very recent judgment delivered on 15.03.2022 has also considered most of the previous judgments relied upon by the applicant, 15 OA No. 1543/2021 including Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), and held as under:
"33. Referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this court in The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO and another v. Mohan Kumar, [Judgment dated 20.1.2022 passed in W.A. (MD) No.1827 of 2021] held as under:
"20. In the case of Bimal Kumar Mohanty (supra), the Apex Court held that suspension is not a punishment, but only one for forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It is with the direction that each case may be considered on its facts and taking into account the gravity of the offence or the misconduct. The interference with the order of suspension should not be driven in reference to a judgment, but needs to be determined on facts and after considering the rules governing the delinquent. Judicial review in such matters should be minimal. In the instant case, the allegation against the delinquent is quite serious, as he not only demanded but accepted bribe and was caught red-handed by the Anti-Corruption Department. The aforesaid were the relevant facts, but were not considered by the learned Single Judge while causing interference with the order of suspension. It is even after ignoring the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of A. Srinivasan (supra), wherein it was categorically held that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) does not evolve a general principle for causing interference with the order of suspension if charge-sheet is not served or charge memo is not filed within three months of the order of suspension. The finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A. Srinivasan (supra) has even been ignored, though binding in nature.
21. In view of the above, we find reasons to cause interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge as none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the writ petitioner/non-
appellant provide assistance on the issue, rather those judgments have been given referring to the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), without analyzing the fact that even in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the order of suspension was not interfered with by the Apex Court, though the charge-sheet in the 16 OA No. 1543/2021 said case was filed after three months since the date of initial suspension of the delinquent employee."
[emphasis supplied]
34. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered by holding that:
(i) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary, supra, does not lay down absolute proposition of law that an order of suspension cannot be continued beyond the period of three months if the memorandum of charges/chargesheet has not been served within three months, or if memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served without reasoned order of extension.
(ii) The judgment in R.Balaji, supra, has no reference to the earlier judgments of co-equal strength and is thereby rendered per incuriam.
(iii) The issue of challenge to the order of suspension should be analyzed on the facts of each case, considering the gravity of the charges and the rules applicable.
(iv) Revocation of suspension with a direction to the employer to post the delinquent in a non-sensitive post cannot be endorsed or directed as a matter of course. It has to be based on the facts of each case and after noticing the reason for the delay in serving the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet".
The above mentioned judgments clearly hold that suspension can be continued depending upon gravity of offences. In the present case, the applicant is under investigation in various cases by the CBI and Vigilance organisation. His prosecution and also major penalty action is contemplated against him. The charges for which he is under investigation are of very serious nature and, therefore, his continued suspension does not call for any interference by this Tribunal.
15. The above mentioned judgments squarely cover the applicant's case of continued suspension. However, in view of completion of various investigations and recommendations of 17 OA No. 1543/2021 major penalty action, already available with the respondents, the respondents should endeavour to take further necessary action for issuance of charge sheet, if so decided, and consider all these aspects during the next Suspension Review Committee meeting.
16. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the O.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das) Member (A) Chairman /jyoti/