Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. This Court has perused the materials on record and have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Let this Court first take into account the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajiv Kumar (supra).

10. The facts of the said case can be discerned from paragraph No.6 of the Page No.# 6/24 said judgment rendered in the case of Rajiv Kumar (supra) whereupon it would appear that the said Rajiv Kumar was arrested on 26.03.1998 for allegedly accepting bribe and was released on bail on 02.04.1998. Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 stipulates that the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority w.e.f. the date of his detention if he is detained in custody whether on criminal charges or otherwise for a period exceeding 48 hours or w.e.f. the date of his conviction if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. In the case of Rajiv Kumar (supra), the order under Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1965 was passed on 15.05.1998. Subsequent thereto on 02.07.2000, the said order dated 15.05.1998 was assailed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench on the ground that there is no reason for his suspension taking into account that prior to the order of suspension, the petitioner-Rajiv Kumar was already released on bail. It further appears that the prosecuting agency filed a challan on 02.09.2000. Thereafter, on 11.10.2000, Rajiv Kumar filed an application for interim relief. Thereupon, on 09.11.2000, an order was passed by the authorities continuing suspension. Subsequent thereto, vide a judgment dated 14.03.2001, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the authorities to dispose of the matter by a reasoned and speaking order. An application for Review was filed on 26.04.2001 which was however rejected vide an order dated 15.05.2001. Further to that, in terms with the Central Administrative Tribunals direction, an order was passed on 21.05.2001 and the same was stated to be the subject matter of challenge before the Page No.# 7/24 Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thereupon, on 03.08.2001, a writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the aforesaid orders dated 14.03.2001 and 15.05.2001. However, the order dated 09.11.2000 by which the authorities passed an order of continuing suspension was not challenged.

Page No.# 9/24

26. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the order in terms of Rule 10(2) is not restricted in its point of duration or efficacy to the period of actual detention only. It continues to be operative unless modified or revoked under sub-rule (5)(c), as provided under sub-rule (5)(a).

27. Rule 10(5)(b) deals with a situation where a government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during continuance of that suspension irrespective of the fact whether the earlier suspension was in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise. Rule 10(5)(b) can be pressed into service only when any other disciplinary proceeding is also commenced than the one for and during which suspension or deemed suspension was already in force, to meet the situation until the termination of all such proceedings. In contradiction, Rule 10(5)(a) has application in relation to an order of suspension already made or deemed to have been made. Rule 10(5)(b) has no application to the facts of the present case and no inspiration or support could be drawn for the stand taken for the respondents or the decision arrived at by the High Court. It is Rule 10(5)(a) alone which has application and the deemed suspension would continue to be in force till anything has been done under Rule 10(5)(c). Similarly, Rules 10(3) and 10(4) operate in different fields and merely because a specific provision is made for its continuance, until further orders in them itself due to certain further developments taking place and interposition of orders made by court or appellate and reviewing authority to meet and get over such specific eventualities, in given circumstances and that does not in any way affect the order of suspension deemed to have been made under Rule 10(2)."

18. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of that during the said proceedings before the Supreme Court, the appellant therein (Ajay Kumar Choudhary) was served with the charge sheet and the Supreme Court therefore observed that the observations made in paragraph 21 may not be relevant to him any longer. However liberty was given to the appellant if so advised that he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the respondents would be subject to judicial review. Paragraph 22 of the judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) being pertinent is quoted hereinbelow:

"22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the respondents will be subject to judicial review."

19. It further appears that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rakibuddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam and Others [WP(C) No.3218/2019] had made a reference to the Larger Bench with the following question.