Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Vijay Nama vs Cgda on 27 May, 2025
OA No. 259/2024 with MA No. 542/2024 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 259/2024
WITH
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 542/2024
Order Reserved on: 22.05.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 27.05.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Vijay Nama son of Shri Shiv Prakash Nama aged about 36
years, resident of Flat No. 602, Ruby Sky Notes, 9-12,
Dwarika puri, Near Maharana Pratap Circle, Pratap Nagar,
Jaipur-302033, Rajasthan. Presently working as Junior
Translation Officer, PCDA (Army) Jaipur, Rajasthan. Mob.
94130-02619, (Group 'B' service), Email:
[email protected]
Subject: Suspension
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for the applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batore
Road, Palam, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi-110010.
3. The Joint Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan
Batore Road, Palam, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi-110010.
4. The Principal Controller General of Defence Accounts
(Army), Khatipura Road, Jaipur-302012, Rajasthan.
.... Respondents
Shri Lalit Mohan Bhardwaj, proxy counsel for
Shri Gopal Krishan Sharma, counsel for the respondents.
OA No. 259/2024 with MA No. 542/2024 2
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying for the following reliefs: -
"It is, therefore, prayed that the present original application made by the applicant may kindly be allowed. The impugned suspension order suspension dt. 29.12.2022 (Annex-A/1) and further extension order dated 12.05.2023 (Annex-A/2), 04.08.2023 (Annexure A/3), 07.11.20223 (Annexure A/4) and 29.04.2024 (Annexure A/5) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Applicant may be reinstated n service immediately.
Any other relief or direction which this learned Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of applicant. Cost of original application may kindly be awarded in favour of humble applicant. "
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that while working as Junior Translation Officer, he was placed wunder deemed suspension vide order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure A/1) w.e.f. 29.12.2022 i.e. from the date he was detained by the CBI. The suspension of the applicant had been extended on four occasions. The applicant was directed to remain under suspension vide order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure A/5) on recommendation of the Review Committee for a further period of 180 days beyond 05.05.2024. The applicant had taken the ground that the extension of his suspension is illegal as the order of suspension had come to an end after the period of 90 days from the date of the suspension order for which he invoked Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and OA No. 259/2024 with MA No. 542/2024 3 Appeal) Rules, 1965. The applicant also placed reliance upon the order dated 24™ February, 2025 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sh. U.S.P. Kushwaha vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No. 3004/2024) dealing with the similar controversy wherein the suspension continued beyond the statutory period of 90 days in violation of provisions of Rule 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965.
3. On the other hand, the respondents in their reply have stated that the suspension is reviewed by the empowered committee constituted by the headquarter office, Delhi Cantonment. Further, in terms of the provisions stipulated in Government of India Decision No. 04 below Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, suspension is desirable in the misdemeanor viz. Corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money inter alia the disciplinary authority may consider it appropriate to place a Government servant under suspension where allegations have been made against the Government servant and preliminary inquiry has revealed that a prima facie case is made out which would justify his prosecution and the proceedings are likely to end in his conviction. They further stated that prosecution sanction had already been granted by the competent authority based on the evidences provided by the CBI ACB Chandigarh along with its investigation report. OA No. 259/2024 with MA No. 542/2024 4
4. The respondents have further stated that after considering all the facts related to CBI Cases (i.e. detention of the applicant, suspected cognizable offence in CBI Case No. RC0052022A0031 dated 28.12.2022 for indulging in criminal / conspiracy / corrupt / illegal means in lieu of undue advantage for ulterior motives), another FIR No. RC0052023A0021 dated 21.06.2023 registered against the applicant at CBI ACB Chandigarh for which sanction of prosecution was sought by CBI ACB Chandigarh in 02 cases. The review committee consisting of 03 members had reviewed the suspension of the applicant four times and extended the suspension in each review for 90 days, 90 days, 180 days and 180 days respectively.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
6. The applicant was detained by CBI on 29.12.2022. Subsequently, vide order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure A/1), the applicant was deemed to have been suspended w.e.f. 29.12.2022 (i.e. the date of his detention) in terms of sub- rule (2) (a) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. On 10.02.2023, he was released on bail but his suspension was extended on four occasions. Vide order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure A/5), his suspension period was further extended OA No. 259/2024 with MA No. 542/2024 5 based on the recommendation of the Review Committee for a further period of 180 days beyond 05.05.2024.
7. The applicant stated that as per Rule 10 (7) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 if an employee is placed under suspension for a period of 90 days and no review takes place in the prescribed period then the suspension is deemed to be over on the expiry of 90 days period and subsequent review will not have any impact. The extract of 10 (7) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is reproduced as below: -
"10 (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."
8. However, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us a copy of the G.S.R. 156 notified by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions dated 19" October, 2022, amending Rule 10 (7) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the relevant extract of the same is reproduced as below: -
"XXXXX OA No. 259/2024 with MA No. 542/2024 6
2. In the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, in rule 10, in sub-rule (7), for the proviso, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely: --
"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 detention and in such case the ninety days' period shall be computed 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:
Provided further that in a case where no charge sheet is issued under these rules, the total period under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended period in terms of sub-rule (6) shall not exceed,--
(a) two hundred seventy days from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (1); or
(b) two years from the date of order of suspension, if the Government servant is placed under suspension in terms of clause (aa) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1) as the case may be;
or
(c) two years from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later, in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2).
[F. No. 11012/04/2016-Estt.A-III 1"
As per the above amendment, the period of 90 days shall be computed from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or from the date on which his release from detention was intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later. However, the proviso further states that in a case where no charge sheet is issued under these rules, the total period under suspension or deemed suspension, as the case may be, including any extended period shall not exceed two years from the date the OA No. 259/2024 with MA No. 542/2024 7 Government servant detained in custody is released or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later, in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2).
9. It is an admitted fact that no charge-sheet has been issued against the applicant and he was released on bail from custody on 10.02.2023, which is beyond the period of 02 years as provided in the proviso to the amended Rule 10.
10. In view of the amendment in Rule 10 as cited above, the very ground taken by the applicant in the present O.A. does not sustain. However, the respondents are directed to consider his case in the light of the proviso of above cited amendment in Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as his suspension period has already gone beyond 02 years from the date of release from detention / intimation of the same to the concerned authority.
11. With these observations and directions, the present Original Application is disposed off. No order as to costs.
12. In view of the order passed in the OA, all the pending Misc. Applications, if any, are disposed off.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER