O.A. No. 32/Jodhpur/2012. Case: Sharad Chandra Salvi S/o Shri Sunder Lal aged about 55 years, resident of H. No. 1-J-14, Housing Board Colony, Banswara, at present employed on the post of Assistant Post Master, Chetek Circle HO Udaipur Vs Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & I.T., Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 01, The Post Master General, Rajasthan Southern Region, Ajmer and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Udaipur Division, Udaipur. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No. 32/Jodhpur/2012
JudgesMr. B.K. Sinha, Administrative Member
IssueService Law
Judgement DateNovember 23, 2012
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Order:

Mr. B.K. Sinha, Administrative Member, (Jodhpur Bench)

  1. The instant OA has not been filed against any particular order but, has rather been preferred for getting the period after expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension i.e. 30.01.2011 and onwards till the date of revocation of the suspension i.e. 22.11.2011 treated as having been spent on duty for all practical purposes. The following reliefs have been sought by the applicant in this OA:

    (i) That the respondents may be directed to treat the period from 31.1.2011 to 22.11.2011 as invalid suspension period and the same may be treated as spent on duty for all purposes and the applicant allowed the due salary and allowances less subsistence allowances already paid, if passed on his pending representation, during pendency of this case, may also be quashed.

    (ii) That any other direction, or orders may be passed in favour of the applicant which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.

    (iii) That the costs of this application may be awarded.

    The applicant, who was employed as Assistant Post Master, Head Office, Udaipur, was served with an order of suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 2.11.2010 (Annex. A/1) under the provisions of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Consequently, under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, the applicant was served with a chargesheet vide Memo dated 27.04.2011, inter alia, for not checking the AIS consolidation and misappropriation committed by one Shri Punkaj Kumar Nigam, SPM, Fatehpura. An inquiry officer was appointed. The applicant alleges that no review of the suspension has been undertaken under Sub Rule (6) and (7) of the Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, as amended vide OM dated 12.07.2007, nor was there an order of extension issued at the first instance. As a consequence of this statutory provision, the order of suspension became ipso facto infructuous w.e.f. 31.1.2011 as per the mandate of rules. However, the 3rd respondent issued an order of extension of suspension from 2.5.2011 vide order dated 2.5.2011 (Annex. A/4). The applicant, thereupon, submitted a detailed representation dated 4.5.2011 for treating the suspension period following the expiry of the initial 90 days from the date of suspension, as infructuous (Annex. A/6). As there was no response to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT