O.A. No.060/01097/2016. Case: Harpreet Singh son of Jaswant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

Order:

Mr. M.S. Sullar, Member (J), (Chandigarh Bench)

1. The challenge in this Original Application (O.A.), filed by applicant Harpreet Singh son of Sh. Jaswant Singh, is to the impugned order dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereby he was (deemed) suspended on account of detention in criminal case, and order dated 08.11.2016 (Annexure A-3), by virtue of which, his period of suspension was further extended for 180 days, by the Disciplinary Authority.

2. The crux of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant O.A., and emanating from the record is that the applicant, while working on the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer (for brevity ACIO) I/G, was arrested on 29.07.2016 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) in criminal case registered against him, vide FIR No. RCCHG, 2016 A0015 dated 25.07.2016 on accusation of having committed the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC and sections 7 and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act), for posing himself as Inspector, CBI and demanding illegal gratification of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant Ravinder Singh. In contemplation of investigation of criminal case, he was placed under deemed suspension, vide impugned order dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure A-1). Sequelly, the period of suspension was further extended for a period of 180 days, vide the impugned order dated 08.11.2016 (Annexure A-3), by the competent authority.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant O.A., challenging the impugned orders being illegal, arbitrary, sketchy, discriminatory and against the rules. It was pleaded that continued suspension of the applicant without issuing any charge-sheet is contrary to the settled law, and principles of natural justice. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant seeks to quash the impugned order, in the manner, indicated hereinabove.

4. On the contrary, the respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant and filed the reply, wherein it was stated that the applicant was arrested in pointed criminal case of heinous offence and was detained in the custody for a period of more than 48 hours. As a consequence thereof, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. the date of his detention, vide impugned order (Annexure A-1), and his suspension was extended for a further period of 180 days, vide impugned order (Annexure...