Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Udit Prakash Rai vs Home Affairs on 12 September, 2024
(OA No.281 /2024)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.281/2024
Reserved on :23.08.2024
Pronounced on :12.09.2024
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Udit Prakash Rai, IAS, Group 'A',
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sh Om Prakash Rai,
R/o 49A Pocket B,
Mayur Vihar Phase 2,
Delhi - 110091. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi- 110001.
2. Joint Secretary (U.T.)
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Mizoram
New Secretariat, Khatla,
MINECO, Aizawl-796005
CS MIZORAM @ gmail.com ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K.Jain)
(OA No.281 /2024)
(2)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned suspension Order No. 14033/08/2023-UTS-I dated 31.07.2023 (A-1) issued by the MHA, GoI and reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(ii) To declare the suspension Order No. 14033/08/2023-UTS-I dated 24.01.2024 as well as order / orders extending said suspension as nullity and declare the applicant in service w.e.f. 30.09.2023 for all purposes.
(iii) To quash and set aside the impugned Memo dated 25.01.2024 (A-2) & 25.01.2024 (A-3) and direct the respondents to treat the applicant in service with all consequential benefits and release all arrears of pay with interest at GPF rates.
(iv) To allow the OA with cost
(v) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
Interim relief Pending final adjudication of the OA, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the impugned extension of suspension order dated 24.01.2024 (A-2) as well as consequential order dated 25.01.2024 (A-3). In case, the said orders are not stayed, the same will cause irreparable loss to the applicant and would amounts to permit the respondents to take premium of their contemptuous act as committed by the respondents by violating the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 19.10.2023 in OA No. 3253/2023. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble (OA No.281 /2024) (3) Tribunal has been pleased to stay the suspension order of similarly placed officer in OA No. 2330/2023."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as indicated in the OA are that the applicant, who is a Indian Administrative Officer (IAS) of 2007 batch, selected through Civil Services Exam conducted by UPSC, is aggrieved by the arbitrary and malafide action of the respondents in placing him under suspension vide Order No. 14033/08/2023/ UTS-I dated 31.07.2023 issued by the MHA, Gol on false and baseless grounds. The said order has been issued on the allegation of demolition of a monument for construction of official residence, whereas there were substantial proofs and evidences to show that already existing Govt. accommodation was renovated and no such monuments was ever demolished. However, the said substantial proof was not taken into consideration and suspension order was issued, which was otherwise not warranted inasmuch as, the applicant was already transferred from Delhi to Mizoram in February 2023. Further, the applicant being the administrative head is never involved in the execution of the project of renovation of the Govt. accommodation. However, disregarding the merits of the case and the fact that the applicant was already posted in Govt. of Mizoram and he in (OA No.281 /2024) (4) no way be able to influence the enquiry, the applicant has been placed under suspension. The said action of the respondents is not only violative of their own rules, but also law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2015 AIR (SC) 2389). The applicant is further aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2024 as well as 25.01.2024 vide which his suspension has been further extended for a period of 180 days beyond 26.01.2024 in violation of Rule 3 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, as amended vide Notification dated 23.04.2015 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Deepak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222.
3. It is submitted that said House No. 2, Jal Vihar was always in the occupation of the official of Delhi Jal Board and when the same was allotted to applicant, the same was in a dilapidated condition and was not habitable. Considering the aforesaid dilapidated condition of the aforesaid accommodation, the renovation was required to be done, therefore the renovation was carried out by the Delhi Jal Board with the approval of competent authority i.e. Chairman, Delhi Jal Board. It is also submitted that as per (OA No.281 /2024) (5) records of Land and Estate Branch of DJB that said Govt. house was used as residence since 1978 by the then Chief Engineer and later on also used as Guest House by Delhi Jal Board and the allotment of the aforesaid House was made in favour of applicant by following the same procedure as followed for allotment of official accommodation to IAS/DANICS Officer posted in different Departments of Govt. of NCT of Delhi including Delhi Jal Board. After completion of renovation work by the concerned Wing of Delhi Jal Board, the applicant occupied the same in May 2022 as per due procedure and started utilizing the same like any other officer who is allotted Govt. accommodation.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant was served upon show cause notice vide letter No F.46/1/2023/DOV/ 5118-5119 dated 26.04.2023 and the same was received by applicant on 1st June 2023 on such allegations, which were not at all concerned with the functioning of applicant as CEO, but mainly related to the renovation of the official accommodation allotted to applicant by competent authority as per rules. The applicant states that he was shocked to receive the said notice inasmuch as, the allegations in the said notice were not at all concerned with him being CEO (OA No.281 /2024) (6) and mainly related to the different wing of Delhi Jal Board i.e. Land & Estate and Engineering Wing. Be that as it may, the applicant responded to the said notice and submitted a detailed representation on 13.06.2023 (through Govt. of Mizoram) to provide him the relevant documents to enable him to submit reply to the said Show Cause Notice. Even otherwise also, the very purpose of giving an opportunity of hearing is to ensure that the concerned officer gets full opportunity to put forward his defence for consideration of competent authority so that the issue gets settled on merits and the officer is not subjected to undue harassment for want of clarity on the issue.
5. It is also stated that the said representation/request of applicant dated 16.08.2023 submitted to the respondents through Govt. of Mizoram was required to be considered on urgent basis to settle the issue. However, as the respondents were conscious of the fact that the Show Cause Notice was issued on presumption and was not at all containing any factual details, therefore the request of the applicant to provide relevant documents was not considered, rather the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.07.2023. A perusal of said suspension would show (OA No.281 /2024) (7) that the same has been issued without conducting any fact finding inquiry which is mandatory to ascertain as to whether there is any material available against the officer concerned to justify such extreme action of suspension. Even otherwise also, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicant related to an official accommodation allotted by competent authority in Delhi and the applicant was already transferred to State of Mizoram in February 2023, therefore the suspension was wholly unwarranted. The allegations as contained in aforesaid Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2023 reads as under:-
"1. Demolition of Old Monument for construction of Govt accommodation at Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar.
2. Violation of General Pool Accommodation rules.
3. Illegal allotment and construction of Govt. accommodation at Jal Vihar
4. Refusal to vacate the residence even after notice from DJB.
6. The applicant submits that it is evident from aforesaid allegations that the same are not even remotely concerned with the applicant being CEO. Firstly, the accommodation was allotted to the applicant as per rule by concerned authority and the renovation was also carried out by Engineering Wing of Delhi Jal Board entitled to get official (OA No.281 /2024) (8) accommodation, which is habitable and as per his entitlement like other IAS Officers of AGMUT Cadre. Although, it is not necessary to give all the details regarding aforesaid accommodation, however it would be appropriate to clarify the factual position with regard to aforesaid House No. 2, Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi so that the Hon'ble Court can take a judicial notice of apparent malafide action of the respondents. In fact, as per the records of Land and Estate of DJB that said Govt. house was used as residence since 1978 by the then Chief Engineering and later on also used as Guest House by Delhi Jal Board. All throughout the process of allotment of the house, the residence to be allotted was mentioned as Old bungalow only and no other structure apart from this was mentioned anywhere in the file at any stage. As the house was in a dilapidated condition, the same was repaired and renovated by the DJB Engineering Wing under the supervision of Member (Water) who is the head of the Technical Wing.
7. The applicant states that the Govt. Accommodation is situated at Aliganj revenue village whereas the said Monument at serial no. 17 is situated in Khizrabad. The map of the 2 villages also clearly shows that there is no overlap (OA No.281 /2024) (9) in the 2 revenue villages and they are at least 5 kms apart. So far as alleged violation of General Pool Accommodation Rules is concerned, it is humbly submitted that Services Department of GNCT of Delhi posted the applicant as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Delhi Jal Board (DJB) in October 2021. While serving as CEO DJB, an old Govt Accommodation, namely House No. 2, Jal Vihar, New Delhi (herein after referred as "house") was allotted to applicant, as explained herein above. It is also stated that the aforesaid Accommodation is House not and a Departmental General Pool Accommodation, therefore, the rules as applicable to General Pool Accommodation cannot be applied to Departmental Accommodation which are constructed, renovated and maintained by the concerned Department itself and no exception can be carved out in case of Delhi Jal Board inasmuch as, the similar Department Accommodations are maintained by NDMC, Central Jail Tihar, MCD etc. The design, area and other specifications of these departmental accommodations are fixed by the concerned department itself. It is also stated that not only in case of accommodation allotted to applicant but in all the Delhi Jal Board Accommodations as allotted to Senior Officers have provisions of camp office, boundary wall, lawn and space (OA No.281 /2024) (10) around the residences. Most of the above houses have open area of around 2 acres (8000 sq. mtrs) and in some of the houses it is more than 3 acres (12000 sq. mtrs).
8. The applicant reiterates that as the house was in a dilapidated condition, the same was repaired and renovated by the DJB Engineering Wing under the supervision of Member (Water) who is the head of the Technical Wing. The process of tender and award of the same was done with the concurrence of Finance Wing & Technical Wing of DJB headed by Dir (Finance) and Member Water respectively. Due approval was taken from the competent authority for the award of the tender. After renovation, the applicant had occupied the same in May 2022. The applicant has vacated the house on 15th Sept. 2023. In fact, the vacation notice dated 9th Sep 2022" was again perverse as the same was issued without verifying the factual and rule position. The said notice dated 09.09.2022 was canceled by the competent authority i.e. Chairman, Delhi Jal Board.
9. It is submitted that it is evident from the aforesaid facts that the allegations as made basis to issue aforesaid Show Cause Notice and the suspension order are factually incorrect. Even otherwise also, in view of the applicant's (OA No.281 /2024) (11) transfer from Delhi to Mizoram, there was no justification to even place the applicant under suspension. As the applicant has already joined State of Mizoram, therefore no purpose would be served in keeping the applicant under suspension merely because the issue regarding renovation of House No. 2, Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar is being considered. Furthermore, the applicant is not at all in a position to influence the inquiry, nor he would be as he is posted in Mizoram. In addition to aforesaid, it is also stated that unfortunately the applicant's father Shri Om Prakash Rai has been diagnosed with Prostate Cancer Stage 4 in May 2023. Considering the aforesaid peculiar development, the applicant had to proceed on 15 days leave in June 2023 to take care of his ailing father before suspension. The applicant expected improvement in the health of his father, however the health condition of applicant's father has deteriorated and the applicant had to even take HQ leave permission from Mizoram w.e.f. 2nd August 2023. Thereafter the same was extended by the competent authority to 30th September 2023. The applicant also submitted application for HQ change to Govt of Mizoram on 23rd August 2023 which was duly forwarded to MHA by the Govt of Mizoram. As the condition of the applicant's father remained critical and there (OA No.281 /2024) (12) was no other family member to take care of his father, the applicant requested again for the HQ change in Sep 2023 which has also been submitted to MHA. As the request submitted by the applicant is genuine, therefore the respondents were expected to consider the same, however the needful has not been done and the applicant has been forced to submit medical papers. The applicant has done the needful and also brought to the notice of respondents that the applicant's father required continuous treatment and the same is also evident from the fact that the chemo and radio therapy of Shri Om Prakash Rai started w.e.f 28th Sept. 2023. The schedule of the Chemo & radio Therapy has also been submitted to the Govt of Mizoram and MHA along with the request to extend the HQ leave permission till completion of the treatment. But even after lapse of about 3 months, headquarters have also not been changed, thereby punishing not only the applicant, but the whole family and father of the applicant. Further, the Govt of Mizoram has directed the applicant to report to HQ by 10th October 2023 which is inhuman and cruel as his father is in a very critical condition undergoing Chemo & Radiotherapy. The presence of the applicant is very essential for the care of his father and if he is not available, it would be very detrimental to (OA No.281 /2024) (13) health and life of his father. Furthermore, as the applicant is under suspension, therefore there is no loss of work if his HQ is changed. Also he will be failing as a son if he is not there when his father is such a critical health condition.
10. He submits that so far as rule position with regard to change of Headquarter is concerned, the same has been envisaged in CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and the same reads as under:-
"As per Rule 10(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, that in case the official under suspension requests for change of Head Quarters, there may be no objection to the Competent Authority in allowing the change of Head Quarter if it is satisfied that such a course will not put Government to any extraexpenditure like grant of TA etc or other complications. [Μ.Η.Α. Ο.Μ. No. 39/5/56-Ests. (A) dated 8th September, 1956]"
11. It is further submitted that the applicant has already given the undertaking that there will be no extra expenditure like grant of TA etc. It is also contended that there are a number of decisions/judgments of the Hon'ble Courts of Law in this regard in which it has been held that the change of HQ of suspended employee be allowed. Moreover, the applicant's suspension is wholly unwarranted as there is no allegation against the applicant regarding his functioning as CEO DJB. The only allegation against the (OA No.281 /2024) (14) applicant as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2023 is with regard to renovation of an official accommodation, which has now been vacated by the applicant. As stated in the preceding paras, the applicant has been suspended not on account of committing any misconduct or in compliance of any rule or procedure but the same has been issued merely because the applicant did not vacate the House No. 2, Jal Vihar, New Delhi which was allotted to him being CEO, Delhi Jal Board and another officer wanted to occupy the said accommodation. As the applicant's denial to vacate the said accommodation and approaching the court of law to continue in the same was in consonance with rules and law on the subject, therefore the applicant exercised his said right, however the said genuine act of applicant has been construed otherwise as evident from the impugned suspension order as well as the fact that the applicant's request even for change of headquarter has not been accepted. The applicant made said request of change of headquarter due to deteriorating health condition of his father and requirement of medical attention in a Specialist Hospital, however the respondents even ignored the deteriorating health condition of applicant's father and issued another memo dated 16.10.2023. In view of (OA No.281 /2024) (15) aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant was left with no remedy except to approach this Tribunal. Therefore, the applicant filed OA before this Tribunal against the suspension order being unwarranted in the facts and circumstances as pleaded in the preceding paras. The applicant also challenged the action of respondents in not changing his Headquarter from Mizoram to Delhi. The said OA No. 3253/2023 was heard and disposed of by Tribunal vide order dated 19.10.2023 with the following directions:-
"6. Against the background of the brief factual matrix detailed above, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to take an appropriate decision forthwith in accordance with Rules, after due consideration of the facts, circumstances and also the communication addressed by the Government of Mizoram, especially the functional requirement they have mentioned. In no case shall such a decision be made later than 30.10.2023, that is, the date on which appropriate orders with respect to revocation or continuation of suspension are required to be made after conducting the review of the initial order of suspension dated 31.07.2023. The decision so taken shall be conveyed by way of a reasoned communication."
12. In compliance of aforesaid directions of the Tribunal, the respondents were required to take corrective measures by 30.10.2023 with regard to the suspension order dated 31.07.2023 as challenged by the applicant in the aforesaid Original Application by raising various grounds. However, (OA No.281 /2024) (16) the respondents did not take any step pursuant to aforesaid directions of Hon'ble Tribunal as contained in order dated 19.10.2023 even after expiry of 30.10.2023. As the respondents did not review the suspension of applicant dated 31.07.2023 within the stipulated period of 60 days in terms of Rule 3 (8) (a) of All India Service Rules (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 as amended time to time and in compliance of order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 19.10.2023, therefore the suspension of applicant lapsed and the applicant should be treated in service w.e.f. 30.09.2023 and not later than 30.10.2023 in terms of the order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal. The respondents acted in defiance of aforesaid order of this Tribunal as well as the statutory Disciplinary Rules as evident from the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 as well as communication dated 25.01.2024. A perusal of said order dated 24.01.2024 would reveal that the respondents have flouted the directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 19.10.2023 willfully and deliberately inasmuch as, the respondents did not pass any order with regard to suspension of applicant prior to 30.10.2023 and at the same time, extended the suspension of applicant for a period of 180 days without even adverting their own rules. It is also clear from the said order dated (OA No.281 /2024) (17) 24.01.2024 the respondents have tried to create defence against their contemptuous action inasmuch as, in para 2 of the said order dated 24.01.2024, it has been stated that the applicant's suspension was reviewed for period of 120 days beyond 28.09.2023, whereas no such review was ever carried out, otherwise the respondents would have communicated the said order vide which the review was carried out beyond 28.09.2023. No such order was ever served upon/ communicated to the applicant. Furthermore, even the Tribunal was not apprised about any such non existing order. Had the respondents reviewed the suspension of applicant and extended the same beyond 28.09.2023, the Tribunal would have been informed about the same while deciding the OA No. 3253/2023. However, as no such order of extension of suspension was passed, therefore the respondents had no occasion to apprise the Tribunal about said order of review of suspension. In fact, the suspension of the applicant was not reviewed either before expiry of 60 days or 120 days and the same lapsed.
13. It is contended that in fact, the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 vide which the applicant's suspension has been extended for a period of 180 days beyond 26.01.2024 is (OA No.281 /2024) (18) nothing but arbitrary exercise of power and violative of the rules governing the subject. The respondents failed to consider that firstly, the suspension of applicant had lapsed by operation of Rule 3 (8) (a) in September 2023 and the Hon'ble Tribunal also held that the suspension needs to be reviewed not later than 30.10.2023 and secondly, the suspension which get lapsed by operation of rule and law on the subject, cannot be extended, therefore the applicant should have been treated in service for all purposes after expiry of 60 days from 31.07.2023 and the suspension of the applicant which had already lapsed could not have been extended vide order dated 24.01.2024.
14. The applicant points out that it is also relevant to note herein that while considering the identical issue in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly ruled that any order passed by any authority inspite of knowledge of the order of the court, is of no consequence and any subsequent action thereof would also be a nullity. It has also been held that an order which is bad at its inception cannot be sanctified at a subsequent stage. In the case of applicant also, the suspension got lapsed by operation of Rule 3 (8) (OA No.281 /2024) (19)
(a) as well as (d) and the order of this Tribunal dated 19.10.2023, therefore the Impugned order dated 24.01.2024 is nullity in the eyes of law. Thus, the respondents have committed another illegality inasmuch as, the applicant, who has been continued under suspension has been directed to report back to headquarter i.e. Aizol on or before 30.01.2024 without considering that the Tribunal specifically directed to consider the request of applicant for change of Headquarter in view of pressing circumstances on account of ill-health of applicant's father who is suffering from Prostate Cancer, Stage-4. In the aforesaid order dated 25.01.2024, there is not even a whisper about the pressing circumstances as noticed by this Tribunal in the impugned order dated 25.01.2024.
15. The respondents in their reply have submitted that the the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2023 to the applicant, the then CEO, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) in connection with the demolition of a heritage site, construction of a residential accommodation and illegal allotment. The gists of allegations are:-
(a) An ancient monument, namely a Mahal (palace) of Pathan period, existed at the site where the new residence-cum-office complex was constructed near (OA No.281 /2024) (20) DTC Bus Terminal Jal Vihar, Shiv Mandir Road, Lajpat Nagar for the applicant, the then CEO, DJB.
(b) Demolition of part of the entire structure of "Mahal of Pathan Period is violation of GNCTD Notification dated 25.02.2020 and Notification of Govt. of India dated 09.02.2004, wherein violated the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983 i.e. Conservation of Heritage Sites including Heritage Buildings, Heritage/Precincts and Natural, in connivance with the Engineering staff, while the applicant was well aware of the fact that there exists of Historical Monuments, which belongs to Pathan period and is mentioned Sl No. 17, Vol. IV in the List of Mohmmadan and Hindu Monuments prepared and compiled by the Archeological Survey of India.
(c) The applicant violated General Pool Residential Accommodation by occupying a bungalow of size 5500 sq m. which is having size of more than 94 hours of Type-V(A) each size of 106 sq.m andmultiple of 94x in case multi storey's are constructed on that plot.
(d) The Licence Fee is not determined nor mentioned anywhere because it was never visualized that residential accommodation of such magnitude with space of 5,500 Sq. Meters and approx. 700 Sq. Meters built-up area can be constructed.
(e) That applicant, the then CEO Delhi Jal Board himself was aware of the fact that he is drawing salary of Pay Matrix level 12 and thus not eligible to hold the substantive post of CEO, DJB as per Section 3.2(ii) of (OA No.281 /2024) (21) Delhi Jal Board Act, 1998 and thereby not eligible for construction of 700 Sq. Meters of built up area for himself.
(f) That applicant misused his official position for personal gains at the cost of others in gross violation of public interest and rules.
16. It is submitted that in response, the applicant vide his reply dated 30.05.2023, instead of replying to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, leveled allegations of prejudice and bias against Special Secretary (Vigilance), GNCTD and requested that the inquiry against him may be conducted by a different officer/organization. Accordingly, Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD placed relevant records before the Hon'ble LG, Delhi, who recommended that the MHA (Respondent Ministry), being the cadre Controlling Authority for IAS/IPS officers of joint AGMUT cadre, may suspend the applicant/the then CEO, DJB and also initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for his aforesaid misconduct.. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi forwarded all relevant documents/file along with the recommendation of the Hon'ble LG, Delhi vide their notes dated 27.06.2023. The respondent Ministry examined the facts and circumstances of the case in terms of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, Accordingly, with the approval of the Disciplinary Authority, (OA No.281 /2024) (22) applicant/the then CEO, DJB was placed under suspension with immediate effect vide Respondent Ministry's Order dated 31.07.2023 as departmental proceedings were contemplated against him.
17. It is stated further submitted that meanwhile the applicant had filed OA No. 3253/2023 in this Tribunal against the order of his suspension from service as well as against the decision of the Govt. of Mizoram to not permit change of his Headquarters from Mizoram to Delhi or Uttar Pradesh during the period of his suspension. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.10.2023 inter-alia directed issue a reasoned communication conveying therewith the decision of the Competent Authority regarding the representations of the applicant and pass an appropriate order on or before 30.10.2023 on the issue of revocation of suspension or its continuance, as the 90 days period shall be over on 30.10.2023. The respondents state that there is no provision in the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 for review of suspension of AIS officers after a period of 90 days, as observed by this Tribunal. As such, the cut-off date i.e., 30.10.2023 (90 days from date of suspension) is not applicable in this case. Accordingly, the respondent Ministry (OA No.281 /2024) (23) vide its Order dated 24.01.2024, issued a reasoned communication to dispose of the representations submitted by applicant for extension of station leave and/or for change of HQ from Mizoram to Delhi, during the period of his suspension, to allow him to attend to his ailing father. In the Order dated 24.01.2024, it was stated that the Govt. of Mizoram has sanctioned station leave to applicant on multiple occasions and allowed him to remain in Delhi/UP for several months to take care of his ailing father. As such, there is no justification to change his HQ from Mizoram to Delhi/UP during his suspension period. Accordingly, representation for change of HQ was rejected.
18. It is further stated that the Respondent Ministry is the cadre-controlling authority and functions as the State Govt. for IAS/IPS officers of joint AGMUT cadre, while the Department of Personnel & Training functions as the Central Govt. for IAS officers. Therefore, MHA's suspension order dated 31.07.2023 would remain valid for an initial period of 30 days i.e., till 29.08.2023. The confirmation of suspension by the Central Govt. was required for extension in period of suspension by an additional 30 days i.e., total 60 days from 31.07.2023. Accordingly, Respondent Ministry vide OM dated (OA No.281 /2024) (24) 10.08.2023, requested the DoP&T to confirm the suspension of applicant/ the then CEO, DJB. Thereafter, the DoP&T, vide OM dated 29.08.2023, conveyed the approval of the Central Govt. for confirmation of the suspension of the applicant and for extension of the suspension tenure for an additional 30 days beyond 29.08.2023 i.e. for a total of 60 days from 31.07.2023 till 28.09.2023.
19. The respondents state that Rule 3(8)(a) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 provides that "an order of suspension made under this rule which has not been extended shall be valid for a period not exceeding sixty days and an order of suspension which has been extended shall remain valid for a further period not exceeding one hundred-twenty days, at a time, unless revoked earlier," while Rule 3(8)(b) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 provides that "an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made or continued shall be reviewed by the competent authority on the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee". In terms of the aforesaid instructions, a meeting of a duly constituted Review Committee, under the chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary, was convened on 15.09.2023 to consider whether the suspension of the applicant may be (OA No.281 /2024) (25) extended beyond 28.09.2023, i.e., 60 days from 31.07.2023, or whether his suspension may be revoked. The Review Committee was of the opinion that since the charge memorandum against the applicant was not yet finalized, therefore, as a highly placed officer, he would be in a position to influence the materials/witnesses of the case against him in case his suspension is revoked. Therefore, the Review Committee recommended that the suspension of the applicant may be extended for a period of 120 days beyond 28.09.2023, in terms of Rule 3(8)(a) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969. After considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the recommendation of the Review Committee. Accordingly vide respondent Ministry's Order dated 22.09.2023, the suspension of the applicant was extended for a period of 120 days beyond 28.09.2023 i.e. till 26.01.2024.
20. The respondents further states that Rule 3(8)(d) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 provides that "the period of suspension may, on the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee, be extended for a further period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time: Provided that where no order has been passed under this clause, the (OA No.281 /2024) (26) order of suspension shall stand revoked with effect from the date of expiry of the order being reviewed." In terms of the aforesaid instructions, a meeting of a duly constituted Review Committee held on 15.01.2024, under the Chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary, to consider whether the suspension of the applicant may be extended beyond 26.01.2024 or may be revoked. The Review Committee noted that since the charge memorandum against the applicant in the instant case was not yet finalized and therefore, as a highly placed officer, he would be in a position to influence the materials/witnesses of the case(s), if his suspension is revoked. Therefore, the Review Committee recommended that the suspension of the applicant may be extended for a period of 180 days beyond 26.01.2024. After considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the recommendation of the Review Committee and accordingly, vide MHA's Order dated 24.01.2024, the suspension of the applicant was extended for a period of 180 days beyond 26.01.2024 i.e., till 23.07.2024.
21. The respondents have also raised preliminary objection stating that the applicant had earlier filed OA No.3253/2023 (OA No.281 /2024) (27) for the same relief before this Tribunal. The same has already been disposed vide order dated 19.10.2023. Thereafter, respondent Ministry issued a reasoned and speaking order dated 24.01.2024 as directed by this Tribunal. Now the applicant is again praying for the same relief, on some other grounds. The same is not permissible, as the present OA is barred by constructive res-judicata. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
22. Referring to the judgment in case of "Ajay Choudhary vs Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291" delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in consideration of suspension under CCS (CCA) Rules, the respondents have argued that All India Services Rules, (Discipline and Appeal), Rules, 1969 and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 operating in different fields and dealing with different services, cannot be cited as precedent in the cases of suspension under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 are different and distinct from CCS (CCA), Rules 1965. Therefore, decision in the case of Ajay Choudhary by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down any absolute proposition of law that government servant's suspension order cannot be continued beyond 3 (OA No.281 /2024) (28) months, if charge memo has not been issued by then. It is emphasized that this legal position has been explained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in judgment dated 13.09.2017 in Writ Petition No. 8134/2017 in Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Dr. Rishi Anand, para 19 whereof is reproduced as under:
"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."
23. It is further submitted that the suspension order dated 31.07.2023 and subsequent extensions of suspension Orders dated 22.09.2023 and 24.01.2024 of the applicant was communicated to the Govt. of Mizoram, where the applicant is posted through the Speed Post dated 01.08.2023, 25.09.2023 and 24.01.2024 respectively and as such the respondents have acted strictly as per rules.
24. We have heard both the counsels and perused the pleadings on record.
25. Reiterating the claim made in the OA, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had earlier filed an OA before this Tribunal against the (OA No.281 /2024) (29) suspension order being unwarranted and the Tribunal vide its order dated 19.10.2023 had directed the competent authority amongst the respondents to take an appropriate decision in accordance with rules after due consideration of the facts and circumstances. Such a decision was to be made by 30.10.2023 i.e. the date on which appropriate orders with respect to revocation or continuation of suspension are required to be made after conducting the review of the initial order of suspension dated 31.07.2023 but the respondents did not take any step even after expiry of 30.10.2023 and thereafter the suspension of the applicant lapsed and applicant should be treated in service on 30.10.2023 i.e. after 60 days of the suspension period in terms of Rule 3 (8) (a) of All India Service Rules (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. It is argued that instead the respondents passed the impugned order dated 24.01.2024, flouting the directions issued by the Tribunal, inasmuch as they did not pass any order with regard to suspension of the applicant prior to 30.10.2023 and at the same time, extended the suspension period for 180 days. Thus respondents have wrongly stated that the suspension was reviewed for a period of 120 days beyond 28.09.2023 whereas no such review actually took place otherwise the (OA No.281 /2024) (30) respondents would have communicated the said order vide which review was carried out beyond 28.09.2023.
26. It is reiterated that the suspension of applicant had lapsed in September 2023 itself and as a corollary he should be reinstated after expiry of 60 days from 31.07.2023. In support of such contention, attention is drawn to the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147 wherein it was ruled that any order passed by any authority in spite of knowledge of the order of the court, is of no consequence and any subsequent action thereof would also be a nullity. Reiterating the stand taken in the pleadings, it is averred that the respondents have committed another illegality by not considering the applicant's request for change of Headquarter in view of the pressing circumstances, on account ill-health of applicant's father contrary to the direction of the Tribunal. As the applicant has not been served upon any charge memo and his suspension could not be extended beyond 90 days as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra). Furthermore, the respondents have not recorded reasons as to why they have extended the suspension of applicant for a period of 180 (OA No.281 /2024) (31) days beyond 24.01.2024. It is further argued that the applicant has joined Government of Mizoram in March 2023 and he is no position to influence the enquiry/witness or tamper with the evidence. Hence, there is no rationale in not changing his Headquarter Delhi. Reliance is also placed on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajiv Kumar, CA No.5007 of 2003 which held that the period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged. The learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn strength from DoP&T OM No.11012/15/85-Estt (A) dated 03.12.1985 holding that the suspension is not justified where there no risk of tampering with documents. The learned counsel further draws our attention to MA No.531/2024 to submit that during the pendency of the OA, the respondents produced an order passed on 22.09.2023 extending the suspension of the applicant beyond 23.09.2023 which was not received by the applicant till 05.01.2024. Though this order was purported to be passed on 22.09.2023, this was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of final hearing of the OA which was disposed of on 19.10.2023. Learned counsel states that though the applicant was served upon the suspension order dated 31.07.2023 by the Govt. of Mizoram on 31.07.2023 (OA No.281 /2024) (32) itself which they have received through official mail of MHA and even subsequent communications were also sent by the MHA through official mail including the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 and the Govt. of Mizoram sent the said order through e-mail on 26.01.2024.
27. Based on the above, it is contended that all the communications with regard to the applicant's case have always been made through official e-mail but the purported order of 22.09.2023 was sent by Speed Post which is an indication that such order was not passed timely as per the mandate of rules, and it was merely to cover up the delay. Further, the respondents have stated that the order dated 22.09.2023 was sent to Govt. of Mizoram by Speed Post but no such acknowledgement of receiving the said order by Govt. of Mizoram has been produced. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachittar Singh & Anr vs. State of Punjab, 1962 Supp (3) SCR 713 which reads as follows:
"Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its (OA No.281 /2024) (33) communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character."
28. It is submitted that there is an official record/register containing the receiving of order of extension of suspension dated 22.09.2023 by Govt. of Mizoram and service of the said order upon the applicant which is relevant to decide the main issue raised in the original applicant based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Mali (supra) as well Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra).
29. The learned counsel representing the Union of India has reiterated that the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 31.07.2023 as disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him. Thereafter, his suspension was extended for a period of 30 days beyond 29.08.2023 i.e. upto 28.09.2023 under approval of Central Government under Rule 3(1) of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 and for a period of 180 days beyond 28.09.2023 (i.e. upto 26.01.2024) and further period of 120 days beyond 26.01.2024 following the due procedure in terms of Rule 3 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Also, his representation has been duly considered for (OA No.281 /2024) (34) shifting his official Headquarter regarding treatment of his father and he has been permitted to leave the Headquarter as sought by him by Govt. of Mizoram from time to time and there is no need to change his Headquarter as such indisputably to review his suspension order within the stipulated time of 60 days, which nullified his suspension order
30. In the light of above discussions, there are 3 main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, rendering the applicant's suspension void, which need our consideration are: (i) The charge sheet has not been issued even after expiry of one year (ii) The suspension of the applicant was not reviewed within stipulated period of 60 days and (iii) non-communication of extension of his suspension order dated 22.09.2023. In support of first contention, our attention has been drawn to the recent order of this Tribunal dated 08.08.2024 in OA No.2972/2023 in Arava Gopi Krishna vs. Union of India & Others wherein the order of the suspension dated 22.08.2022 with regard to IAS officer allocated to AGMUT Cadre in 2012 was set aside since after expiry of one year of suspension, no charge (OA No.281 /2024) (35) memo was filed. The Tribunal in the aforesaid order held as follows:
"15. It is true that in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra), the applicant was Defence Estate Officer (DEO). Observations made in Para 21 of the said judgment are general in nature, which reads as under:-
"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
16. In Pramod Kumar (supra), the petitioner was an IPS officer. In this Civil Appeal also, the suspension order of the petitioner was challenged. In Para 23 of (OA No.281 /2024) (36) the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"23. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first Respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the High Court that the Appellant State has the liberty to appoint the first Respondent in a non sensitive post."
17. From the above observation, it is made clear that the Apex Court applied the ratio of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) in the case of the petitioner who was an IPS officer, governed by the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
18. In light of the above, the present OA is allowed. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned suspension order dated 22.08.2022, with subsequent extensions vide orders dated 19.10.2022, 10.02.2023, 16.08.2023, as well as later orders. Consequent upon setting aside the suspension order, the respondents shall re-instate the applicant as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The applicant is also entitled to consequential benefits flowing from setting aside of the suspension order, as per Rules."
31. We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal but we find the facts of two cases are not similar. In the OA referred to the applicant was not charge-sheeted as there was no evidence against him and the investigating agency had made a specific assertion that there is no prosecutable (OA No.281 /2024) (37) evidence against the applicant. So far as the applicant's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) is concerned, the same was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide WP(C) No.8134/2017 & C.M. No.33423/2017 decided on 13.09.2017 in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Dr. Rishi Anand wherein the High Court held as under:
"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 (OA No.281 /2024) (38) 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 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."
In the light of above, the contention raised by the learned rendering the applicant's suspension null and void--- mean consideration which had our consideration are:-
32. Therefore, we do not find any force in the argument that the suspension of the applicant automatically ceases in absence of the charge sheet within 90 days of suspension.
(OA No.281 /2024) (39)
33. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the second contention of the applicant that the respondents did not review the suspension of the applicant dated 31.07.2023 within the stipulated period of 60 days in terms of Rule 3 (8)
(a) of All India Service Rules (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 and in compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 19.10.2023, therefore, the suspension of applicant lapsed and he should be treated in service w.e.f. 30.09.2023. During the course of hearing, it is submitted that by the learned counsel for the respondents that though the respondents have claimed that the applicant's suspension was reviewed within the stipulated time, the Tribunal should have been apprised about any such review order when the earlier OA No.3253/2023 was disposed of on 15.10.2023 by the Tribunal.
34. We have perused the relevant record submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents which indicates particularly the Minutes of the Meeting to review suspension of the applicant dated 15.09.2023. The same is reproduced as below:
"MINUTES OF MEETING TO REVIEW SUSPENSION OF SH. UDIT PRAKASH RAL IAS (AGMUT:2007) HELD ON 15.09.2023 at 10:15 AM (OA No.281 /2024) (40) Sh.Udit Prakash Rai IAS (AGMUT: 2007) was placed under suspension w.e.f. 31.07.2023 vide MHA's Order No.14033/08/2023,UTS-I dated 31.07.2023 as disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him.
2. In terms of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1960, the suspension of Sh.Udit Prakash Rai IAS (AGMUT: 2007) has to be reviewed by the Competent Authority on the recommendations of the Review Committee and order for continuation/revocation of the suspension has to be passed before expiry of 60 days i.e. 28.09.2023.
3. GNCTD was requested vide letter dated 31.07.2023 to furnish the draft charge sheet against the Sh.Udit Prakash Rai IAS (AGMUT: 2007) along with the supporting documents/evidence and statement of witnesses for consideration and taking a decision. However, requisite document has not been received from the GNCTD till date. Further, GNCTD was again requested vide letter dated 11.09.2023 to furnish the draft charge sheet along with supporting documents/evidence and also to furnish their comments/views as to whether the suspension of Sh.Udit Prakash Rai IAS (AGMUT: 2007) may be continued beyond 28.09.2023 or otherwise. However, the response from GNCTD is still awaited.
4. The Review Committee, after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, has noted that the Charge Memorandum to be issued against Sh.Udit Prakash Rai IAS (AGMUT: 2007) is yet to be framed and that he is a highly placed officer and if, his suspension is revoked at the stage, he would be in a position to influence the materials/ witnesses of the case.
5. The Review Committee, therefore, recommends that the suspension of Sh.Udit Prakash Rai IAS (AGMUT: 2007) may be extended for a period of 120 days beyond 28.09.2023."
35. It is evident from the above that the suspension of the applicant was reviewed within the stipulated time and (OA No.281 /2024) (41) subsequently order dated 22.09.2023 extending his suspension for 90 days beyond 28.09.2023 was issued. We are not in a position to comment as to why the Tribunal was not informed about the same when the earlier OA was disposed of but the available record leaves no doubt about holding of the review meeting within the stipulated time frame to review the suspension of the applicant.
36. We have also considered the third contention of non- communication of extension of suspension order to the applicant in time which it is claimed, leaves such suspension void.
37. The issue whether the communication of an order means its actual receipt by the official concerned has been settled by State of Punjab vs. Khemi Ram, 1970 AIR 2014 wherein the issue whether he made order to be effective from the date of issue and as to what amounted to "communication" has been spelt out and it has been observed thus:
"The question then is whether communicating the order means its actual receipt by the concerned Government servant. The order of suspension in question was published in the Gazette though that was after the date when the respondent was to retire. But the point is whether it was communicated to him before that date. The ordinary meaning of the word 'communicate' is to (OA No.281 /2024) (42) impart, confer or transmit information. (cf. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 352). As already stated, telegrams dated July 31, and August 2, 1958 were dispatched to the respondent at the address given by him where communications by Government should be dispatched. Both the telegrams transmitted or imparted information to the respondent that he was suspended from service with effect from August 2, 1958. It may. be that he actually received them in or about the middle of August 1958 after the date of his retirement. But how can it be said that the information about his having been suspended was not im1) [1962] 3 Supp, S.C.R.713. (3) A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 1313. (2) [1961] 2 S. C R. 371. parted or transmitted to him on July 31 and August 2, 1958, i.e... before August 4, 1958 when he would have retired ? It will be seen that in all the decisions cited before us it was the communication of the impugned order which was held to be essential and not its actual receipt by the officer concerned and such communication was held to be necessary because till the order is issued and actually sent out to the person concerned the authority making such order would be in a position to change its mind and modify it if it thought fit. But once such an order is sent out, it goes out of the control of such an authority, and therefore, there would be no chance whatsoever of its changing its mind or modifying it. In our view, once an order is issued and it is sent out to the concerned Government servant, it must be held to have been communicated to him, no matter when lie actually received it. We find it difficult to persuade ourselves to accept the view that it is only from the date of the actual receipt by him that the order becomes effective. If that be the true meaning of communication, it would be possible for a Government servant to effectively thwart an order by avoiding receipt of it by one method or the. other till after the date of his retirement even though such an order is passed and dispatched to him before such date. An officer against whom action is sought to be taken, thus. may go away from the address given by him for service of such orders, or may deliberately give a wrong address and thus prevent or delay its receipt and be able to defeat its service on him. Such a. meaning of the word 'communication' ought not to be given unless the provision in question (OA No.281 /2024) (43) expressly so provides. Actual knowledge by him of an order where it is one of dismissal, may, perhaps, become necessary because of the consequences which the decision in The State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (1) contemplates. But such consequences would not occur in the case of an officer who has proceeded on leave and against whom an order of' suspension is passed because in his case there is no question of his doing any act or passing any order and such act or order being challenged as invalid."
38. In view of the law laid down in the Khemi Ram (supra), it can be concluded that the order of suspension was validly communicated to the respondents within the time frame as it was issued on 22.09.2023. We are also of the view that the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. S.P.Singh in Civil Appeal No.3365 of 2008 dated May 7, 2008, on which the leaned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance, is of no relevance here, as it is not the case that the order for extension of suspension was delivered at the wrong address.
39. It is also seen that the order dated 22.09.2023 was dispatched to the applicant through the Govt. of Mizoram. The Govt. of Mizoram has submitted that it has not been received the said order No. 14033/10/2022/ UTS-I dated 22.09.2023 regarding the extension of suspension of the applicant from Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. They have also stated that in view of above, no (OA No.281 /2024) (44) original dispatch/official record is available with the Govt. of Mizoram. Also, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all previous communications concerning the applicant's case have always sent through e-mail whereas in the instant case the respondent No.1 i.e. MHA has taken recourse to the Speed Post to communicate extension of suspension, which creates doubt. However, it is seen that the said order dated 22.09.2023 was marked to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram with the request to hand over the original order to Shri Udit Prakash Rai, IAS, AGMUT Cadre 2007. We do not find anything wrong in this mode of communication sent through Chief Secretary of the State. Just because earlier communications were sent through e- mail cannot be treated as a deviation from the established mode of communication.
40. Other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicant have also received our attention contending that the suspension is not justified where there is no risk to tamper with the documents or extension of suspension order is without justification as no reason issued regarding tamper of documents and related matter can best be decided by the disciplinary authority who is in custody of the relevant facts (OA No.281 /2024) (45) and as such we do not see any reason to take a contrary view. Moreover, the Minutes of Review Committee meeting held on 15.09.2023 state that the charge memo is yet to be issued to the applicant who is a highly placed officer and if his suspension is revoked at this stage, he will be in a position to influence the materials/witness of the case. The order dated 28.09.2023 extending his suspension states that the review committee has taken into account the facts and circumstances of the case in totality and recommended extension of the suspension for a period of 180 days beyond 01.02.2023. Since the review committee has taken a considered view to extend his suspension and the facts and circumstances leading to such decision is best known to them, we do not think that it calls for our interference.
41. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the OA and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/