E S Ranganatha v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) That the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order of issuing any appropriate writ, order/direction to the respondents for quashing the impugned order dated 10.05.2022, Order dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-1 & P-2) and Order dt. 5.4.2023 (Annexure P-3) declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service immediately with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may further graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service w.e.f. 08.08.2022 i.e. from the date of completion of 90 days w.e.f 10.05.2022 for all purposes and with all consequential benefits including the difference of pay and allowances.”

2. As understood from a plain reading of the averments and the grounds in the writ petition as well as from the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner, the limited grievance of the Petitioner is that the suspension order was issued way back on 18.01.2022 and till date, neither the same has been reviewed, as required by law and nor has any charge sheet been issued within three months from the date of the suspension order and therefore, the action of Respondents No.2 and 3 in not revoking the suspension is bad in law.

3. Issue notice.

4. Ms. Abha Malhotra, learned Senior CGSC accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.

5. Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

6. Mr. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on advance copy of the writ petition argues that there is no hard and fast rule or law which mandates that in every case, charge sheet must be issued within three months of the date of the suspension order albeit no doubt, this is a desirable course of action. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9100, more particularly, paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 thereof. It is argued that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case looking to the nature and substance of the allegations, the materials on which the allegations are founded and the complexity of the issues involved as to whether the suspension is to be reviewed or revoked.

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Prabhakar that the Petitioner is factually wrong in submitting that suspension has not been reviewed. Record shows that from time to time, the matter relating to suspension of the Petitioner was deliberated upon and reviewed, which is evident from the order dated 05.04.2023, which the Petitioner has himself annexed as ‘Annexure P-3’ to the writ petition.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined the aforesaid contentions.

9. It is factually correct that Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.01.2022 on his arrest by CBI on 16.01.2022 while he was working as Director (Marketing) with Respondents No.2 and 3. Petitioner is, however, not correct in stating that the suspension order has not been reviewed as per the laid down procedure or law. Perusal of order dated 05.04.2023, which is annexed as ‘Annexure P-3’ to the writ petition, reflects that suspension of the Petitioner was reviewed on 10.05.2022, 05.08.2022 and lastly on 05.04.2023. Relevant part of the order is as under:-

10. The contention of the Petitioner that since no charge sheet has been issued till date, the suspension order automatically lapses and suspension is required to be revoked, is not the correct proposition of law, albeit it is a desirable course of action that employees should not be kept under suspension for prolonged periods and in case a charge sheet has to be issued, the action must be taken as expeditiously as possible. The Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Garg (supra) has held as follows:-