Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: continuation suspension in Union Of India The Secretary Ministry Of ... vs Veerabhadram Vislavath Son Of Bhav ... on 30 November, 2022Matching Fragments
3. However, before we embark on such a task, it would be worthwhile to note the facts and circumstances giving rise to the original application before the Tribunal.
4. The respondent is an officer borne in the Indian Revenue Service cadre. Upon the respondent being detained in custody for a period in excess of 48 hours in connection with investigation of Crime No. 169/2018 registered at Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai, inter alia, under sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter "POCSO Act"), an order dated 14th September 2018 was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, placing the respondent under suspension in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereafter "CCS (CCA) Rules"] until J.V.Salunke,PS Oral Judgment-WPL.33749.2022 (1) further orders. It was indicated in the said order that the respondent was deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, i.e., 5th September 2018. It is not in dispute that the Suspension Review Committee constituted for the purpose of reviewing whether the suspension should continue or not, had made recommendations from time to time and in terms thereof, the suspension of the respondent has continued for over 4 (four) years.
16. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, we are ad idem with J.V.Salunke,PS Oral Judgment-WPL.33749.2022 (1) the learned senior advocate for the respondent that this writ petition does not even merit an admission.
17. Undoubtedly, the respondent was detained in custody in excess of 48 hours. He was, thus, deemed to be placed under suspension from the date of detention. There cannot be any quarrel so far as the initial order dated 14 th September 2018 is concerned, whereby suspension of the respondent was ordered and he was required to remain so until further orders. However, what strikes us is that despite the respondent having been acquitted by the POCSO Court, the suspension was continued by the order dated 13th May 2022, to be effective for a further period of 180 days. This order is obviously the fall-out of the decision of the Suspension Review Committee dated 28th April 2022, to which we advert now.
20. The Suspension Review Committee, after taking note of the contents of the legal notice dated 31st January 2022 served by the respondent's learned advocate, the preliminary inquiry report dated 2nd March 2022, the judgment dated 17th March 2021 of the Special Judge of the POCSO Court and representations of the respondent seeking revocation of suspension, concluded as follows: -
"Conclusion & Recommendation of the Review Committee In accordance with Rule 10(6) & (7) of CCS(CCA) J.V.Salunke,PS Oral Judgment-WPL.33749.2022 (1) Rules, 1965 and DOP&T's O.M. dated 07.01.2004, the Review Committee has reviewed suspension of Shri Veerbhadram Vislavath, (Civil Code : 11131), DCIT after taking into account all the facts, inter alia including 'acquittal order' dated 17.03.2021 of Hon'ble Court of Spl. Judge under POSCO Act, 2012, Representations dated 22.03.2022 & 26.04.2022 of Shri Veerbhadram Vislavath and Legal Notice dated 31.01.2022 served by Advocate Asmita C. Pendhakar and P.E. Report on the complaint regarding alleged debauch character and spending night in Hotel with a number of call girls. The Review Committee found that since Charge Sheet issued against the officer are grave in nature and the P.E. Report on complaint is primarily indicating his alleged involvement in moral turpitude as also information about status of filing of an appeal against the acquittal order by the State of Maharashtra or aggrieved party is not available in definite term and the same is awaited, the Committee recommends to continue suspension of Shri Veerbhadram Vislavath (11131), DCIT for a further period of 180 days beyond 13.05.2022. The case however, may be reviewed further in case new facts emerge."
24. Suspension that the original applicant suffered is in the nature of an interim suspension, which could be continued, at the extreme, till the conclusion of the judicial proceedings. The crime in connection with which the original applicant was arrested has since culminated in the judgment and order of the Special Judge dated 17th March 2021. The respondent, deemed to have been placed under suspension in view of his J.V.Salunke,PS Oral Judgment-WPL.33749.2022 (1) detention in custody in excess of 48 hours, could be continued under suspension for a further period had there been genuine reasons therefor. In an exceptional case, such suspension could have been continued till the period for preferring an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17th March 2021 had expired. Even till this date, no appeal has been preferred, either by the State of Maharashtra or the victim/her family. The judgment has, therefore, attained finality. There could be no earthly reason for the Suspension Review Committee to direct continuation of suspension beyond 13th May 2022. If indeed the preliminary enquiry report dated 2nd March 2022 is the trigger for such continuation, the same has to be regarded as unworthy of being given any credence in view of the instructions/circulars of the DoPT/CVC. We are afraid, the officer who directed preliminary enquiry could also expose himself to be proceeded against in terms of such instructions/circulars for violation of its terms.