OA No. 1491/2015. Case: A.M. Sahay Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 1491/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.K. Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: Gyanender Singh, Advocate |
| Judges | B.P. Katakey, J. (Member (J)) and K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 21; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 120B; Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 7 |
| Judgement Date | December 08, 2015 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
B.P. Katakey, J. (Member (J)), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
This application is directed against the orders dated 25.04.2014, 30.06.2014 and 30.12.2014 passed by the Competent Authority placing the applicant under suspension and extending his period of suspension. Vide order dated 25.04.2014, the applicant was placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short 1965 Rules) w.e.f. 05.04.2014, for his detention in custody for more than forty-eight hours in connection with RC No. 010 2014 A0009 dated 03.04.2014 registered under Section 120B IPC and under Sections 7, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by CBI, ACB, Kolkata. Vide orders dated 30.06.2014 and 30.12.2014, the period of suspension of the applicant from service was extended till 30.06.2015.
-
We have heard the learned counsel Mr. S.K Gupta appearing for the applicant and Mr. Gyanender Singh appearing for the respondents.
-
The only argument put forward by the learned counsel for the applicant in challenging the order of suspension as well as the subsequent extension is that since neither any charge memo nor the charge-sheet in the criminal case has been filed within 90 days from the effective date of suspension, the order of suspension cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the judgment dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1912/2015 - Ajay Kumar Choudhary Versus Union of India Through its Secretary and another.
-
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance on averments made in the counter filed on 15.10.2015, has submitted that the applicant has been placed under suspension for his detention in custody for more than forty-eight hours w.e.f. 05.04.2014 and, thereafter, as required by Rule 10 of 1965 Rules, his period of suspension has been extended, based on the recommendation of the Review Committee, as the investigation in the criminal case was in progress, it was found to be not advisable to revoke his suspension having regard to the stage of investigation. It has also been submitted that just before expiry of the extended period of suspension, which was due to expire on 26.09.2015, the CBI, based on the report sought for, on 03.09.2015 informed the authority that since the investigation of the criminal case pending against the applicant has not been concluded, it is not advisable to revoke the order of suspension. The Review Committee having regard to the materials placed before it recommended further continuation of the period of suspension and accordingly another order was passed extending the period of suspension of the applicant for a period of 90 days w.e.f. 26.09.2015. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the allegation against the applicant of taking a bribe of Rs. 50 lakhs, who was caught red-handed by the CBI, and also in the interest of the investigation as well as in public interest the order of suspension may not be interfered with.
-
The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has never directed that the order of suspension has to be set aside if the charge-sheet in the criminal case or the charge memo in the disciplinary proceeding has not been issued within 90 days from the effective date of suspension...
To continue reading
Request your trial