Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suneel Dutt vs The State Of H.P. And Others on 13 July, 2020
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 2171 of 2020.
.
Date of decision: 13.07.2020.
Suneel Dutt .....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of H.P. and others
.....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mandeep Chandel,
Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
General with Mr. Desh Raj
Thakur, Additional Advocate
General, Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal,
and Ms. Seema Sharma,
Deputy Advocate Generals.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:
"i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the impugned extension order of the petitioner dated 26.06.2020 may kindly be quashed and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2020 20:22:07 :::HCHP 2 set aside and revoke the suspension of the petitioner in the interest of justice and fair play.
.
ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner and re-
instate the petitioner as per law laid down in CWP No. 4915 of 2010 titled Puran Chand Sharma vs. State of H.P. & another vide judgment dated 31.12.2010 on a verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali (2010) 2 SCC (Annexure P-5) along with all consequential benefits."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.12.2019 as he remained in custody. Admittedly, such suspension order was not reviewed and extended in terms of Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of suspension.
3. Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules reads as under:
2["(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (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 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2020 20:22:07 :::HCHP 3 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.]"
4. The aforesaid rule came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Dipak Mali, AIR 2010 SC 336 wherein it was held that if the initial or subsequent period of extension has expired, the suspension order comes to an end because of the expiry of the period provided under Rule 10(6) of the Rules 1965. It was further held that the suspension order reviewed or extended thereafter is not permissible after expiry of the original period of 90 days. It shall be apposite to reproduce the necessary observations as contained in paras 10 and 11 which read as under:
"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, ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2020 20:22:07 :::HCHP 4 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.
11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner, Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing the Respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under the said Act was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review nor extension within the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension."
5. The learned Advocate General does not dispute the legal position, but would contend that the suspension order could not be reviewed and extended because of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and came to be reviewed and extended in ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2020 20:22:07 :::HCHP 5 the meeting of the Review Committee held on 12.06.2020 and going by the prevailing situation, no fault much less illegality .
can be found in the order passed by the Review Committee and needs to be upheld.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
7. It is not in dispute that in view of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, r lockdown was announced by the Government only on 24.03.2020 and the time 90 days for review of the suspension order in terms of the Rules 10(7) had already expired. Therefore, the respondents can take no advantage of the lockdown that was imposed subsequently.
8. In addition to the aforesaid, we find it extremely disturbing that the members of the Review Committee which had failed to review the case of the petitioner for extending/revocation of his suspension order would blame it on the lockdown as if that had foreseen it earlier to its actually being enforced.
9. It would be apposite to refer to the necessary observations which are extracted hereinbelow:
"The matter regarding reviewing his suspension after expiry of 90 days was remained under consideration ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2020 20:22:07 :::HCHP 6 since 17 March, 2020, but due to sudden imposition of curfew lockdown due to COVID 19 in the State, this .
process has been hampered as some essential requisite information could not be gathered."
10. This tendency of inventing reasons for one's failure, when practically none exist, needs to be strongly deprecated.
We observe so because in another CWP No. 2168 of 2020 titled Gauri Shankar vs. State of H.P. and others', we have already vide separate order of the day asked the members of the Review Committee to explain their position as therein also these very members had tried to justify their inaction for no plausible reasons whatsoever.
11. It cannot be disputed that Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules confers a valuable right on a person placed under suspension and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Mali's case (supra) the subsequent review and extension of the order cannot revive the order of suspension which has already become invalid after the expiry of the 90 days from the date of the suspension.
12. Consequently, we find merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned extension order of the suspension of the petitioner dated 26.06.2020 is ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2020 20:22:07 :::HCHP 7 quashed and set aside and resultantly the suspension of the petitioner is revoked. The petitioner shall be entitled to all .
consequential benefits after completion of the 90 days' suspension period which are admissible to him as per rules.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
r (Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
Judge
13th July, 2020.
(krt)
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2020 20:22:07 :::HCHP