Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Santosh Kumar Karnani vs Revenue on 28 July, 2025
1
Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1153/2024
Reserved on: 15.07.2025.
Pronounced on: 28.07.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
SANTOSH KUMAR KARNANI,
(Civil Code: 05024)
Aged: 43 years (DoB being 03.09.1979)
Son of Shri Ram Chandra Karnani
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (0SD) in O/OPr.CCIT,
Ahmedabad
Address For Communication:
R/o No.1202/A, Sundarvan Epitome
Near ISRO, Satellite, AHAMEDABAD 380 015
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S. Sunil)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
(Notice to be served through its Secretary to the GoI,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001).
2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
[To be represented through its Chairman,
(CBDT), North Block, NEW DELHI 110 001].
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX (Gujarat),
O/o Pr.CCIT, Gujarat, Ahmedabad
3r"Floor, Aayakar Bhavan
Ashram Road, AHMEDABAD 380 009.
4. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX (CCA), North Eastern Region, Guwahati,
O/o. Pr.CCIT, NER, Guwahati,
Aayakar Bhavan, G.S.Road, Christanbasti,
GUWAHATI 781 005 Assam
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma)
2
Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
In the instant O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(i) Quash and set aside:-
(I) Suspension Order dated 18.11.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 (CBDT) under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Govt of India, which was served upon from the office of Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 29.11.2022 under the signature of Deputy Commissioner of Income, Tax, Vigilance, placing him under suspension under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965;
(II) Order dated 18.11.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 (CBDT) under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Govt of India, which was served upon from the office of Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 29.11.2022 under the signature of Deputy Commissioner of Income, Tax, Vigilance, placing him under suspension under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules. 1965, allowing the Applicant to draw only a subsistence allowance admissible under FR 53 (1) read with FR FR53 (2) which is a consequential order passed pursuant to the aforesaid impugned Suspension Order dated 18.11.2022;
(III) Review Order of Suspension dated 04.02.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 (CBDT) under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Govt Of India, which was served upon from the office of Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 07.02.2023 under the signature of Deputy Commissioner of Income, Tax, Vigilance by which the Applicant's suspension has been reviewed and it has been decided to continue his suspension for 1 80 days or until further orders, which ever is earlier;
(ii) Grant such other & further reliells as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the present Original Application.
3Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The applicant, an IRS Officer of 2005 Batch, joined the services of the respondents‟ department as a direct recruit Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (in short „ACIT‟) in pursuance of his selection and recommendation by the UPSC in the year 2005. Thereafter, the applicant joined the National Academy of Direct Taxes at Nagpur in December, 2005 and upon completion of the induction training, he was posted as ACIT in Mumbai in the year 2007 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in short „JCIT‟) in August 2014 and was transferred to Ahmedabad. In the year 2017, the applicant was further promoted to the grade of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (in short „Addl. CIT‟).
3.1 While the applicant was working as Addl. CIT, a complaint was filed by one Shri Rupesh Balwantbhai Brahmbhatt against the applicant before the Anti Corruption Branch (in short „ACB‟) of Gujarat Police at Ahmedabad on or about 4.10.2022 alleging that the applicant had demanded an illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.30.00 Lakhs from the said complainant and according to the applicant, in pursuance of the said alleged demand, the complainant had deposited in cash an amount of Rs.30.00 Lakhs with one Shri Dhara Angadia, Ahmedabad. On receipt of the above complaint, the ACB registered an FIR (C.R. No.RC0292022A0011 of 2022 before the CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar Police Station, Disrict: Gandhinagar against the applicant on 04.10.2022.
3.2 It is stated by the applicant that it appears that the said complainant had furnished a copy of the aforesaid FIR dated 04.10.2022 to the office of Pr. CCIT, Gujarat, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 placed the applicant under suspension under the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure A-1). In the said 4 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 suspension order reference has been made to a case registered by ACB, Ahmedabad on 04.10.2022 under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and contemplated the disciplinary proceedings as the grounds of suspension. In the said suspension order, it is stated that the applicant was said to be absconding. However, according to the applicant, the same is not true and correct as he was legally advised to use his constitutional and legal rights for safety and dignity of himself.
3.3 The applicant had approached the competent criminal court of law at Ahmedabad praying for grant of anticipatory bail to him and the said anticipatory bail application was allowed with certain directions by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 19.12.2022 passed in R/Criminal Misc. Application No.20871/2022, titled Santosh Karnani S/o Ramchandra vs. State of Gujarat, in which one of the direction was that „at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders. Thereafter, the respondents had passed order dated 4.2.2023 reviewing the earlier suspension order and extended the period of applicant‟s suspension for further period of 180 days on the ground that the allegations are grave in nature in addition to the grounds stated in the earlier suspension order. Feeling aggrieved by the above impugned orders, the applicant has filed the instant OA for redressal of his grievance.
CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANT
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the suspension order refers to the case registered by ACB, Ahmedabad on 04.10.2022 under Section 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (and subsequent transfer to CBI and re-registration of FIR on 12.10.2022 by the CBI under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The suspension order also states 5 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 that disciplinary proceedings are being contemplated against the officer. The relevant Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act (after amendment in 2018) is reproduced as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
- [(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do;
or
(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.
Explanation 1. - A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2. - The expression "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful sources.] [Substituted by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
It is a matter of record that the Gujarat State ACB rushed to register FIR on multiple sections including Section 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without even inquiring into the nature of allegations and that the ACB was in haste and acted without application of mind, and the competent authority while issuing the suspension order failed to take note of this material difference between the two FIRs. Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act ibid post the amendment in 2018 relate to cases of disproportionate assets and not in trap cases.
6Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the
competent authority also mentioned that disciplinary proceedings were being contemplated without even examining the contents of the complaint. The ACB and CBI are not aware about the nuances and procedures of Income Tax Department whereas the competent authority to decide on suspension is very much aware of such nuances and procedures. The department has apparently not even bothered to read and verify the allegations made in the complaint (in Gujarati language), which is accompanied with the FIR and is in public Domain (the official website of CBI). The Competent authority would have gauged the defects, deficiencies and fallacies in the complaint had they applied their mind and made even a preliminary examination of the translated copy of the said complaint. The facts contained in the file notings initiated on 28.10.2022 have also been placed before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which after appreciation of evidences and facts held that there was serious doubt on demand and acceptance and on such basis, the court was pleased to grant protection.
4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that evidently, the suspension order dated 18.11.2022 was issued by the competent authority pending any prima facie appraisal of complaint and even before conducting a preliminary check of the contents of complaint, especially when the allegations were wild and were not even technically possible as per department's working. It clearly shows that suspension order was passed casually and without application of mind. Moreover, the suspension order passed only a few days before the conduct of DPC (held on 28th November 2022 for the batch of the applicant‟s officer) shows that the decision was made in utmost haste and probably to stall the promotion of the officer, who otherwise had an excellent track record.
7Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
4.3 Learned counsel further emphasised that it appears that the
competent authority has apparently not made any check with other important stakeholders such as the local CA association or bar council regarding the general reputation of the officer, especially when his past career was rated outstanding and that the complainant was presumably aggrieved because of past survey conducted by the officer.
4.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the department completely ignored the fact that the complainant group had history of tax evasion and litigation, whereas, the integrity of the officer has been unblemished throughout in all his appraisal reports for 17 years and that he had been continuously rated as „Outstanding‟. The department even did not bother to check the complaint in light of the above background and had not examine the possibility of the complainant having harboured past animosity towards the applicant. The officer was in promotion zone, and DPC was scheduled on 28th November, 2022. It appears that the complainant aided by some of his well wishers in the department have been able to use their influence and power to get the applicant suspended just before a few days before the DPC so that his promotion is scuttled and placed in sealed cover. Suspension and transfer of an outstanding officer, especially when the grounds of complaint itself are dubious, is rather a disservice to the society and lowers the motivation for other officers. Transfers and suspensions carried out without proper application of mind or due appreciation of facts not only derail the course of investigation, but such actions are hugely detrimental to public interest.
4.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the moot questions which arise for consideration are the following:-
8Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
(i) Did the department even place the translated copy of
complaint, which is in Gujarati, before the authority competent to decide suspension?
The contention of the applicant to the above question is that in all probability, no such translated copy of complaint has been placed before the competent authority to decide on the issue of suspension.
(ii) Did the department even conduct a preliminary check of the contents of the said complaint, especially when there were allegations which were not even possible, as per department's working and that too when the order of suspension was based on such premise?
The contention of the applicant to the above question is that probably no preliminary check of the contents of complaint was ever conducted by the Respondent before deciding to place the applicant under suspension.
(iii) Whether the department carried out any check with any CA association or bar council regarding the general reputation of the applicant, especially when his past career was rated outstanding and that the complainant was presumably aggrieved because of past survey conducted by the applicant?
The contention of the applicant to the above question is that no such exercise was probably undertaken by the Respondent before deciding to suspend the applicant.
(iv) Did the department have any evidence that the officer had attempted tampering or influencing any witness?
The contention of the applicant to the above question is that there can be no such evidence and that any apprehension in this regard is unfounded and without any basis.
9Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
(v) What investigation was done in 45 days, after registration of
FIR, to arrive at conclusion that suspension was in public interest and what were such public interests?
The contention of the applicant to the above question is that in all probability, no such investigation was ever carried out before deciding the suspension of the applicant.
4.6 Learned counsel also submitted that it is clear from the above submissions that there has been total non-application of mind in suspending the applicant from service. The impugned suspension order dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure A-1), therefore, deserves to be set aside.
4.7 Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have mechanically reviewed the aforesaid order of suspension again with non-application of mind and without taking cognizance of the development that took place after passing the impugned order of suspension which may be demonstrated as under:
i) The impugned suspension order dated 18.11.2022 has been extended by 180 days on the ground that the allegations are grave in nature in addition to the grounds stated in earlier suspension order dated 18.11.2022. It has further been stated that the headquarters shall not be changed (i.e. will remain in North Eastern region).
(ii) The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, vide its order dated 19.12.2022, while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant has observed/directed as under:-
"9. I have perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Learned ASG has relied upon the decision in the case of Rajesh Chandulal Shah (supra), wherein the accused was found with the amount of illegal gratification and the demand and acceptance were completed and in the said decision also, the 10 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 Court has dealt with all earlier decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and in all the cases, the trap was concluded and the person was found with illegal gratification amount so the offence was concluded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The another decision relied upon by learned ASG is on the basis of the demand and acceptance. So far as acceptance in the present case is concerned, the same creates doubt because as per the prosecution case, the amount which was demanded by the accused, came to be deposited by the complainant in the account of Vardhman through Dhara Angadia Firm. Even it is also the case of the prosecution that co-accused Malav has made a phone call to the owner of Dhara Angadia Firm, but no record of phone calls of Dhara Angadia Firm produced on record. If it is presumed that the accused demanded an amount of undue advantage then also there is n0 evidence with regard to acceptance.
*** *** *** *** ***
12. This Court has considered following aspects;
(i) The FIR is registered on 12. 10.2022 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place on 04.10.2022.
(ii) Learned APP under instructions of IO is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant.
(iii) The role attributed to the applicant- accused;
(iv) That the applicant is Additional Income Tax Commissioner and no any other criminal antecedents against him;
(v) There is creating serious doubt about demand and acceptance of the amount;
(vi) There is no discovery or recovery from the applicant;"
4.8 On the strength of above observations of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, learned counsel submitted that after appreciation of evidences and material available on that date the Hon‟ble High Court held in para no. 12 (v) of its order that there is „serious doubt about demand and acceptance of the amount‟ and that the applicant had no any other criminal antecedents, and that there was no discovery or recovery from the applicant. Counsel also submitted that the learned CBI Special Court, vide its order dated 30.12.2022, 11 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 had also denied 5 days remand sought by CBI and only directed the applicant to present himself before the CBI between 10:00 am to 7:00 PM for four days to facilitate investigation.
4.9 Learned counsel also submitted that M/s. BSafal Group of Companies has a long history of tax evasion; the owners are son of an erstwhile senior police officer; and that they have very strong connections within the state police and local politicians.
4.10 Learned counsel argued that the applicant has been subjected to huge mental trauma, psychological pain and unwarranted hardship due to the suspension arising out of conspiracy orchestrated by M/s. BSafal Group of Companies. Moreover, the continued suspension is causing huge damage to the applicant‟s social standing and subjecting him to undue financial stress. There cannot be possibly any public interest involved in the suspension, especially when the tenure of the applicant in Ahmedabad has been unblemished and the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court has clearly held that there is serious doubt about demand and acceptance of money after appraising all evidences submitted by the prosecution.
4.11 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has been rated as an „outstanding‟ officer throughout his career; has an impeccable integrity record; has been a vital training resource for junior officers; has been appointed as a member of advisory committee to the CAG office at Gujarat & Rajasthan; has been instrumental in defending the Revenue in various vital and sensitive cases before the Income Tax Tribunals; has been lauded by the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry twice in past for his positive attitude, professional competence, integrity and facilitating effective solutions to tax payer grievances.
4.12 Learned counsel also submitted that in view of above, the impugned review order of suspension, is liable to be set aside.
12Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 4.13 Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under:
"3. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointed authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee.
4.14 Learned counsel further submitted that it is well-settled law that suspension of an employee pending disciplinary proceedings is not an automatic or routine measure, but a discretionary power to be exercised judiciously, based on the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the imputed charges. Courts have consistently held that an order of suspension cannot rest on conjectures, unverified allegations, or extraneous considerations. Its purpose is to facilitate a fair and unobstructed inquiry. However, where the suspension appears arbitrary, vitiated by mala fides, or indicative of victimization as evident from the facts and circumstances, judicial interference is warranted. Moreover, while suspension may not amount to punishment in the strict legal sense, the stigma it carries is undeniable and often more damaging than many penalties prescribed under service rules. The opprobrium and reputational harm suffered by the officer cannot be dismissed on the mere legalistic plea that suspension is not punitive.
4.15 Learned counsel also submitted that it is a well-settled principle that the mere use of the expressions "in the public interest"
or "in the interest of public service" does not, by itself, render the 13 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 order genuinely so. Mere recitation of such phrases in a transfer order does not ipso facto establish that it was made in the public interest.
4.16 Learned counsel for applicant emphasised that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court after appreciation of evidences and material available as on that date held in para no. 12(v)of its aforesaid order that there is serious doubt about demand and acceptance of the amount. The Hon'ble court further observed in para no. 12 that the applicant did not have any other criminal antecedents and that there was no discovery or recovery from the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned CBI Special Court, vide its order dated 30.12.2022, had also denied 5 days remand sought by the CBI and only directed the applicant to present himself before the CBI between 10:00 am to 7:00 PM for four days to facilitate investigation. As such the impugned suspension orders are liable to be set aside.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. By drawing attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that due process was followed in examining the case records. Counsel further submitted that the applicant joined the Income Tax Department in 2005 as an IRS Officer. In fact, applicant's name was included on the basis of the said complaint in the agreed list 2015 of Group 'A' officers of Income Tax Department. It was reported that the applicant had done a shoddy and diluted investigation and compromised the search action in certain cases and these acts of failure and omission of the applicant were motivated by illegal monetary gratification and not on account of incompetence.
5.1 Learned counsel also submitted that as per records one
Rupesh Balwantbhai Brahmbhatt, Director of M/s Safal
14
Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
Constructions (India) Private Limited (SCIPL) filed a written complaint dated 04.10.2022 against the applicant, before State АСВ, Ahmedabad, wherein the complainant stated that he owned a company titled M/s Safal Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd, having office at B-Safal House, near Tej Motors, SG Highway, Ahmedabad and engaged in the business of construction for last 25 years. In September-2021, the Deputy Director, Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-2 Ahmedabad had conducted a search at his business & residential premises. It is further stated that he had gone to the Income Tax office after June 2022 in order to meet the concerned officer regarding the search conducted at their premises. At the said office, he came to know that his case related to the search was being handled by the applicant, Addl. CIT, Central Range-1 Ahmedabad. He has further stated that a survey was conducted in 2019 at the business premises of one of his companies - M/s Safal Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd, by the then officer of Range 4(1), Ahmedabad under the supervision of the applicant during that period. Shri Rupesh Brahmbhatt was familiar with the applicant since then, and was in regular touch with him. This is also evident from the printout of the relevant WhatsApp call taken from the extracted data recovered by CFSL from the mobile phone of the applicant. He has further stated that the applicant called him frequently in his office and issued threat to cause very huge financial losses to his business and demanded amount illegally for doing the act so that economic losses are not caused to him.
5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that on 1st October 2022, conversation through WhatsApp call took place between the applicant and Rupesh Balwantbhai Brahmbhatt wherein the applicant asked Rupesh B Brahmbhatt to come to his office (chamber located at Income Tax Office, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad) on Monday i.e. 03.10.2022 and meet him. This fact is established from Screen Shots of WhatsApp chat 15 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 and call logs of mobile phone of Rupesh Brahmbhatt. During the meeting with Rupesh Balwantbhai, the applicant demanded Rs.30,00,000/- for passing favourable order and further directed him to deposit the said amount in the „Vardman‟ account at Dhara Angadia. Shri Rupesh Balwantbhai Brahmbhatt had recorded the said conversation related to the demand of undue pecuniary benefit in a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR). After recording the demand conversation Shri Rupesh Brahmbhatt, approached the Ahmedabad City A.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad on 03.10.2022 for lodging complaint, as he did not want to give such amount of illegal gratification to the applicant. After hearing the conversation and satisfying himself, a formal complaint was registered vide No. CR.12/2022 by Shri D N Patel, Trap Laying officer (TLO) on 04.10.2022 against the applicant u/s 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The said TLO along with Shri Shailesh Bhikhabhai Desai, an employee of Shri Rupesh Balwantbhai Brahmbhatt and along with other witnesses, on 04.10.2022, went to the 6th floor, Shop No-611, Dhara Angadia Firm and handed over the bribe money of Rs 30,00,000/- to Shri Bharatbhai Devrambhai Thakkar (Manager of Dhara Angadia) for depositing the same in the 'Vardhman' account'. The said money was accepted by him. After completing the recovery process of bribe money at Dhara Angadia Office on 04.10.2022, the other officials of ACB went to the office of the applicant at 3rd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Despite introduction and disclosing identity and showing I-card and asking not to make any movement, the applicant, rang the office bell repeatedly and called peons and other colleagues in his chamber, and taking the advantage of uproar and ruckus caused by them he escaped from his chamber. The incident of his escape was recorded by one of the team members of Ahmedabad City ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad in his mobile handset. The said video also disclosed that before the escape from 16 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 his office, the applicant handed over two of his mobile handsets to Sh. Vivek Johri then ACIT HQ, Ahmedabad, and as per his instruction, he threw the said two mobiles into the deep water of Sabarmati River. In fact, on disclosure of Shri Vivek Johri, the CBI team with the help Fire Department, NDRF & SDRF recovered both the mobile handsets of the applicant from Sabarmati River on 15/16.04.2023 and data retrieved from these phones was analysed. In view of the detailed facts stated above, in the present case, Rule 10(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules was attracted in the case of applicant both on account of pending criminal case against him under investigation by CBI and also on account of disciplinary proceedings being contemplated against him.
5.3 The applicant was placed under suspension under Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. For ready reference Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is reproduced as under:
"10. Suspension (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (aa) where .....................
(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial:"
5.4 As such the Competent Authority deemed it fit to invoke Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and granted approval on 07.11.2022 to place the officer under suspension. Accordingly, vide order dated 18.11.2022, applicant was placed under suspension with immediate effect. In other words, after consideration of applicability of rule 10(1) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and after due examination of the contents of information and FIR received from the Gujarat ACB and CBI, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, and the fact that the applicant was 17 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 absconding and not reported for duty to his new place of posting, suspension order was passed on 18.11.2022 with the approval of the Competent Authority.
5.5 Learned counsel also submitted that even after issue of two Memoranda dated 10.03.2023 and 10.04.2023 by the office of the Pr.CCIT, NER, Guwahati, the applicant did not join his new place of posting at Jorhat while it was also mentioned in the Memo dated 10.04.2023 that failing to report for duty will attract initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him under CCS (Conduct), Rules, 1964. Suspension of the applicant is still continuing. Last extension order of suspension has been issued by the competent Authority on 11.01.2024.
5.6 In fact, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against applicant vide Memorandum dated 02.05.2023 in F.No.A- 24012/09/2023-AD-VIA for his unauthorized absence from duty, under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. IO/PO have been appointed vide order dated 20.10.2023 and Inquiry Report is awaited. Further, for the alleged misconduct of the applicant of demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 30,00,000/- through Dhara Angadia in Vardhaman Account in lieu of favor granted during the assessment proceedings of Sh. Rajesh B. Brahambhatt and M/s Safal Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., the assessments in these cases were completed on 29.09.2022 and 30.09.2022 respectively after the approval granted u/s 153 D by the applicant, obstructing the trapping team of ACB Ahmedabad city Police for performing their duty, deliberately causing disappearance of evidence of committing offence and acquiring properties by payment of inadequate consideration, a proposal has been sent to CVC seeking its First Stage Advice for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 as per draft Charge Memorandum enclosed therewith.
18Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
5.7 In support of above contention, learned counsel for the
respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Order/Judgment dated 10.01.2001 of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Constable C.P. 117, Yad Ali and others vs. Superintendent of Police, Chandauli and other, reported in 2001 SCC Online AII 23; (ii Order/Judgment dated 20.08.2024 of the Hon‟ble Orissa High Court at Cuttack in the matter of Pabitra Matia vs. State of Odisha and another in W.P.(C) No.41425/2023; (iii) Order/Judgment dated 5.11.2024 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of C. Tamilpandian vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram Division, Ramanathapuram; and (iv) Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahadeo and others vs. Sovan Devi and others, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 807.
5.8 Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant‟s reliance on the internal file notings is misconceived, as such notings are merely noting simpliciter and do not constitute a decision of the Government. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo (supra), particularly paragraphs 15 and 24, wherein it was held that file notings by themselves do not have the force of law or represent a conclusive decision unless duly approved by the competent authority and communicated accordingly. It was further submitted that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable on facts and have no bearing on the present case. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
REJOINDER
6. Besides reiterating the above contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that on the date when the applicant was placed under suspension, i.e., 18.11.2022, no chargesheet had been 19 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 filed before the concerned CBI Court and further submitted that on perusal of the notings, copy of which provided to him under the RTI and placed on record, it is abundantly clear that initiation of the process of suspension, the lightning speed of file movement, the details of the material available before various authorities, before approving the suspension made vide order dated 18.11.2022. Before the suspension file was initiated, a letter was issued to the ADG(V), Mumbai to submit comprehensive report, subsequent to generation of PSR file No.DGIT(V)/PSR/1368/22 on the alleged complaints received by the Vigilance Directorate of Income Tax Department. However, such report was neither received nor placed before the competent authority before passing suspension order. The ITO(Vig.) WZ-3(1), Delhi CBDT has stated that considering nature of charges, disciplinary proceeding can be said to be contemplated against the applicant and also similarly placed in comments of DGIT (Vigilance).
6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant contended that contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings as mentioned in the said Rule 10 of the Rules ibid does not include the concept of deeming fiction. As there is no scope of any such deeming fiction to allow that such proceedings can be said to be contemplated in absence of any law/rule approving of the same and if such fiction is allowed, the same will cause chaos in service matters, as it shall allow and perpetuate arbitrariness, extraneous considerations and discrimination in the process. The chain of events recorded in the file, obtained through the RTI, clearly points out that the decision to suspend the applicant was already taken and that the file was thereafter moved to give colour of legality to such pre-decided suspension and to show the whole process as per procedure. Further on perusal of the file notings, it is evident that the competent authority was not aware of any preliminary findings of the department (since no preliminary report was received and hence, 20 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 such findings could have never been placed before the competent authority before suspension). Hence, the competent authority could not have applied its mind to the material facts. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that on perusal of the file noting, it is abundantly clear that neither the English/Hindi translation of the alleged complaint of the complainant nor the translated copy of the FIR registered by the Gujarat State ACB dated 4.10.2022, both of which were in Gujarati language, were ever placed before the competent authority. Further the decision to initiate proceedings was yet to be taken and that evidently, the matter was at the preliminary enquiry stage (or confidential enquiry or some sort of departmental investigation stages as directed by the Vigilance Directorate and not the competent authority).
6.2 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in above circumstances, the decision to place the applicant under suspension has been taken in absence of any material collected in preliminary investigation and that the appointing authority has not recorded any prima facie satisfaction that they have substance and the starting of formal proceedings would be justified. Hence, at any point of time prior to the taking of such a decision, it could not be said that an inquiry under the service rules was contemplated. In support of above contention, learned counsel placed reliance on OM dated 2.1.2014 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Pensions & Public Grievances, Department of Personnel and Training wherein the guidelines on suspension have been consolidated and are placed as appendix. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Order/Judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No.7169/2019 & W.M.P. Nos.7891 and 7894 of 2019 in the case of R. Velmurugan vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.
7. We have perused the pleadings available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the 21 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 parties and have also gone through the Orders/Judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels for the respective parties carefully.
ANALYSIS
8. Having considered the facts of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, it is not in dispute that the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 18.11.2022, by invoking the provisions of Rule 10 (1) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, with the approval of the competent authority. The main contention raised by the applicant is that the order of suspension was primarily only on the basis of registration of a case by the ACB, Ahmedabad on 04.10.2022 under Sections 7, 13 (1) (a), and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which was subsequently transferred to the CBI and re-registered by the CBI on 12.10.2022 under Section 7 of the said Act and the said impugned order also mentions that disciplinary proceedings are being contemplated against the applicant without even holding a preliminary inquiry although the said inquiry is still not carried out.
9. In view of above, we are of the considered view that the following issue is required to be adjudicated by this Tribunal in the instant case:-
(i) Whether in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the suspension of the applicant vide the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 is sustainable in the eyes of law or not?
9.1 Rule 10 of the Rules ibid deals with suspension, the contents of which read as under:-
"10. Suspension (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority 22 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or
(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial:
Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an Assistant Accountant General or equivalent (other than a regular member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. It is further submitted that the officer has been placed under suspension in view of an inquiry pending against the officer and the competent authority has considered the material before it and came to the conclusion that an inquiry is required in the matter. The filing of FIR and the department of proceeding are two different, separate, and distinct proceedings and stand on their own merit."
9.2 Now we deem it fit to refer to the relevant portion of the file noting initiated by ITO (Vig.) on 28.10.2022, as on record, which reads as under:-
"6. On receipt of the above complaints in this Directorate, the complaint has been processed and on the basis of the contents of the complaint received, PSR file generated through ITBA with No. DGIT(V)/PSR/1368/22 (Pg. 59/c) and subsequently letter issued to ADG(V), Mumbai to submit a comprehensive report on the matter. Further vigilance inspection of his work in the Central charge has also been approved by te DGIT (Vigilance) vide 7/N on 27.10.2022. Irrespective of the findings of the Vigilance inspection, it is clear from the copy of FIR that serious charges are made by the ACB and CBI on the officer and the officer can be said to be absconding. Considering the nature of charges, Disciplinary Proceedings can be said to be contemplated against the officer Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT. Thus, even rule 10(1)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, is attracted in the case of Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani.
(emphasis supplied) 9.3 From the above, it is evident that as on the date of the said noting, the ADG (Vigilance), Mumbai, had already been directed to 23 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 submit a comprehensive report on the matter. Although the Vigilance Inspection of the applicant‟s work in the Central Charge was subsequently approved by the DGIT (Vigilance) on 27.10.2022, it is clear that, irrespective of the outcome of such inspection, the decision to place the applicant under suspension was primarily predicated on the basis of aforesaid FIR registered by the ACB and the CBI, alleging serious offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of the gravity and nature of the allegations, can it reasonably be inferred that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the applicant, thereby attracting the applicability of Rule 10 of the Rules ibid.
9.4 For proper adjudication of this point, we deem it fit to quote the said file notings which read as under:-
S. Authority Notings Date of Time of
No. Approving Appointment Approval
01. ITO(VIG) WZ-3(1)- Note #1 28.10.2022 12:30 PM
Delhi, ITCBDT
02. ADG(HQ) (V)-3 Note #2 28.10.2022 12:37 PM
03. DGIT (Vigilance) Note #3
28.10.2022 01:06 PM
04. Member (Admin) Note # 4 28.10.2022 05:59 PM
05. Chairperson Note #5 28.10.2022 06:37 PM
06. Revenue Secretary Note #6 01.11.2022 10:06 AM
07. MOS(Finance) Note #7 02.11.2022 12:45 PM
08. Minister of Finance Note # 8 07.11.2022 05.49 PM
and Corporate
Affairs
09. Revenue Secretary Note #9 07.11.2022 07:26 PM
24
Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
10. Chairperson Note #10 07.11.2022 08:21 PM
11. Member (Admin) Note # 11 14.11.2022 02:26 PM
12. DGIT (Vigilance) Note #12 14.11.2022 02:27 PM
13. ADG (HQ)(V)-3 Note #13 14.11.2022 05:42 PM"
9.5 Upon a careful examination of the file notings, we observe that
the initiation of the proposal was made by the Income Tax Officer (Vigilance) on 28.10.2022 at 12:30 PM. The same was subsequently approved and forwarded by the Additional Director General (Headquarters) at 12:37 PM on the same day, with identical comments as recorded by the initiating officer. Thereafter, the proposal was approved and forwarded by the Member (Administration), CBDT, at 5:59 PM on the same day, accompanied by her remarks. The Chairman, CBDT, accorded his approval and forwarded the same at 6.37 PM as well, without offering any additional comments. The file was then approved and forwarded by the Revenue Secretary on 01.11.2022 at 10.06 AM, followed by the approval and forwarding by the Minister of State (Finance) on 02.11.2022. The final approval was accorded by the Hon‟ble Finance Minister on 07.11.2022. From the movement of the file notings, it is evidently clear that the proposal to place the applicant under suspension has been processed with a lightning speed within the department in half a day without any preliminary inquiry, etc., under the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the said Rules the stage where such disciplinary proceedings can be said to be "are contemplated"
cannot be said to have reach. It is apparent that at the time the decision was so taken to place the applicant under suspension, no preliminary inquiry report or material forming the basis of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding was available before the competent authorities. In view thereof, the situation can be more 25 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 accurately described as one in which disciplinary proceedings were being contemplated, rather than were contemplated. In this matter this distinction is significant. Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules ibid provides that a government servant may be placed under suspension "where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated..." The use of the phrase "is contemplated" implies a certain degree of definitiveness or formulation of intent based on substantive material. In contrast, "is being contemplated" denotes an earlier, more tentative stage in the decision-making process. Thus, there exists a substantial difference between the two expressions, i.e., "is contemplated" and "is being contemplated" and the facts on record indicate that the case of the applicant falls within the latter.
9.6 At this stage it is apt to mention here that if Statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner, that should be done in that manner only, or not at all. In this view of ours, we are fortified by the view taken by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 511. For facility of reference, relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is extracted hereunder:-
"26. It is also well settled that a beneficent provision of legislation must be liberally construed so as to fulfil the statutory purpose and not to frustrate it.
*** *** *** *** ***
40. ......... It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof."
(emphasis supplied) 9.7 From the above movement of file notings, it is apparently clear that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant under the provisions of Rule 10 (1) of the Rules ibid cannot be said as „is contemplated‟ as the preliminary inquiry in the matter was not available before the concerned authorities at the time when decision 26 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 was taken for placing the applicant under suspension rather it is to be treated as „is being contemplated‟. Here we again note that Rule 10 (1) (a) of the Rules specifically provided that an employee can be placed under suspension 'where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated ......‟ As explained above, there is a vast different between „is contemplated‟ and „is being contemplated‟.
9.8 At this stage, it is apt to state that the applicant was placed under suspension on 18.11.2022 and review of his suspension was done on 04.02.2023 and the instant OA has been filed by the applicant on 14.3.2023 and as on that day, neither charge sheet has been issued to the applicant in the instant case nor the concerned authority at Mumbai has submitted a comprehensive report. However, learned counsel for the applicant has apprised this Tribunal that chargesheet in the said matter was served upon the applicant on 20.11.2024, i.e., after expiry of two years from the date of issuance of suspension order.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo & Ors. v. Smt. Sovan Devi & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2022, wherein it is held that the inter departmental communications are in the process for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. While rendering the said decision, the Hon‟ble Apex Court upon its another judgment in The Municipal Committee, Barwala v. Jai Narayan & Company & Anr. In Civil Appeal No. 2222 of 2022, held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more and by no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as decision of the government.
10.1 Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the file notings from the initiation of suspension proceedings culminated in passing of the suspension order. The Apex Court in the aforesaid 27 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 judgment has held that the file notings cannot be relied upon because it is a noting simplicitor and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. What is important to be noted is following finding of the Apex Court in para 15 of the very same judgment:
"15. This Court in Municipal Committee v. Jai Narayan & Co. 7 held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of an opinion by the particular individual. It was held as under:
"16. This Court in a judgment reported as State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 SCC 670 held that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. It was held as under:
"24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review.
17. ...."
10.2 In the present case, the file notings which started with the initiation of file by ITO(Vig) WZ-3(1)-Delhi, CBDT on 28/10/2023 has culminated in passing of the impugned suspension order. On 28 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 going through file notes, it can be seen that all the file notings attached have been accepted/approved without any modifications by FM on 07.11.2022. Based on these notings, a final decision has been taken for suspension, thus, these notings are no longer an opinion. It is true that file notings are recorded in the process of appropriate decision but in the present case these notings were as it is accepted at each stage without any modification. Therefore, the contents of the file notings are relevant for determining the controversy. The reason why the Hon‟ble Apex Court has taken such a view is clear from the reading of the concluding line of para 24 of its decision in State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Vaish, (2011) 8 SCC 670 as quoted above which states that a noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review.
10.3 Therefore, in a case where the notings can be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned, the Court should not take cognizance of earlier noting or decision. In the present case, there are no earlier notings and there was no scope of any review/reversal of the file notings. The FM has approved and accepted the file notings without any modification and finally Suspension Order came to be passed. Therefore, the notings are relevant in the facts of present case.
10.4 Further, the facts in the present case and Mahadeo (supra) are clearly distinguishable. That case pertained to a land allotment dispute, wherein, the issue under consideration was whether inter- departmental communications, not expressed in the name of the Governor or communicated to the beneficiary, could confer any enforceable legal right. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that unless such communication is formalized as an order in the name of the 29 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 Governor and duly communicated, it cannot give rise to any legal right.
10.5 In contrast, the present matter does not involve the applicant seeking to assert any right based on the file notings. Rather, the applicant is challenging an executive decision that is entirely premised on such notings. The file notings are being relied upon to demonstrate that there was a total non-application of mind in the issuance of the suspension order.
11. At this stage, we further observe that while granting bail to the applicant, the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat after appreciation of evidences and material available on that date has held in para no.12
(v) of its aforesaid order that there is „serious doubt about demand and acceptance of the amount‟; the applicant has no other criminal antecedents; and there is no discovery or recovery from the applicant.
12. In so far as the reliance placed by the respondents on other judgments as noted above is concerned, we observe that in the case of Yad Ali (supra), the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in para 24 thereof had held that "An order after preliminary inquiry is made with a view to prove the correct facts and unless the correct facts are ascertained, it would be unwise to pass an order of suspension. The disciplinary authority is required to wait for the outcome of the preliminary inquiry and after the receipt of the report of preliminary inquiry if it is found that the allegations are so serious that in order to maintain the discipline, the delinquent employee is required to be placed under suspension, then only an order of suspension should normally be passed. This aspect of the matter was considered this Court in Awadhesh Singh v. Chief Development Officer, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1051. That was a case under Rule 49A which prompted the suspension of a Government servant by the appointing authority pending inquiry. It was held that the order of suspension, no doubt, is discretionary and can be exercised in diverse, varied and variegated circumstances giving rise 30 Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024 to a misconduct warranting disciplinary inquiry but it being open to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, can be tested on grounds of bad faith, mala fide (personal or legal) or irrationality, unreasonableness or non-application of mind. In that case, a sort of an informal inquiry had been ordered and a report called for but the appointing authority instead of waiting for the preliminary inquiry report suspended the employee. It was observed that in all fairness, the appointing authority ought to have awaited the inquiry report, or in the alternative, he ought to have applied his mind to the gravamen as contained in the complaint made against the petitioner to be decided on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the accusations against him were trustworthy, substantial serious enough to warrant dismissal, removal or reduction in rank in the event of being established at the end of the formal inquiry. Suspension order without application of mind to the conditions and circumstances relevant to exercise of discretion is held to be mala fide. The appointing authority, while exercising the discretion under Rule 49A(1) of the C.C.A, Rules directs itself to the question whether the charges are substantial and supported by prima facie evidence or they are baseless, malicious or vindictive and have been made to harass the concerned Government servant or to keep him out of employment. Non application of mind to these aspects would vitiate the order." Hence, the said judgment does not help the respondents in this case.
12. Further reliance placed by the respondents on the case of Pabitra Matia (supra), which is not relevant to the facts of this case, as in that case show cause notice was issued to the said employee and thereafter after considering his reply, the said employee was placed under suspension. Also reliance is placed by the respondents on the decision in C. Tamilpandian (supra), however, we find that the same is also not relevant to the facts of this case as in that case, the petitioner was trapped for accepting bribe for mutation of revenue records and he was arrest, which is not the case in hand.
31Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
13. We also observe that the expressions "is contemplated" and "is being contemplated" relate to the stage before issuance of a charge- sheet but require a definite and conscious decision by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. These terms do not permit arbitrary or casual suspension. The law mandates active application of mind and some tangible material suggesting that initiation of proceedings is warranted. The expression „disciplinary proceeding is contemplated‟ implies a positive and deliberate application of mind by the competent authority. It must be demonstrable from the record that there was a decision to initiate such proceedings. Suspension of an employee under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules ibid cannot be justified on vague or speculative grounds. There must be evidence of a formal proposal or decision to initiate disciplinary action based on some cogent evidence such as preliminary inquiry. Even when proceedings are "contemplated,"
the gravity of the misconduct and necessity of suspension must be assessed. Suspension is a serious step that affects an employee‟s reputation and livelihood. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that prolonged suspension is tantamount to punishment. Suspension, though not a punishment by itself, must be based on urgency and necessity, and disciplinary proceedings must be initiated expeditiously whereas the chargesheet in this case has been served upon the applicant belatedly i.e. after expiry of two years from the date of issuance of impugned suspension order.32
Item No.30/C-1 OA No. 1153/2024
14. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the present OA is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) Suspension order dated 18.11.2022 issued to the applicant on 29.11.2022 and all subsequent order of review of applicant‟s suspension are quashed and set aside;
(ii) This order will come into effect forthwith;
(iii) The applicant shall be entitled to all benefits as per law and rules on the subject and the respondents are directed to settle the claim of the applicant within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
15. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
16. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/