Rajiv Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

1. The petitions havebeen heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated22nd December,2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’) in O.A.Nos.1311/2020 and1441/2020 whereby the O.As filed by the petitioners challenging their suspension orders were 2021:DHC:1615-DB W.P. (C) 4968/2021andconnected 2 of 3 disposed of with a direction to the ReviewingAuthority to takeinto account three factors mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned orders while considering the cases of the petitioners’ in future for extension of the suspension. Since paragraph 6 in both the impugned orders is identical, paragraph 6 of the impugned order passed in O.A.No.1311/2020 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “6. Three factors need to be taken into account. The first is that the applicant is said to be not figuring as an accused in the charge sheet filed by the CBI. If it is a fact that the name of the applicant did not figure in the charge sheet, the same needs to be taken into account, by the Reviewing Authority. The second is aboutthe issuance of a charge memo underRule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 09.12.2020. The question as to whether the charges are serious in nature, warranting the continuance of the applicantundersuspension, deserves to be considered. The third is about the shifting of the applicant from Mumbai to Guwahati. Weare of the view thatas and when the case of the applicant becomes due for reviewing the suspension, the factors mentioned above shall be taken into consideration.”

3. After some arguments,it transpiresthat subsequent to the impugned orders, the respondents have passed orders dated 13th January, 2021 extending the suspension period of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondents while passing the subsequentorders dated 13th January, 2021 havenot considered one of the factors directed to be taken intoaccount by CAT i.e. transfer of the applicants from Mumbai to Guwahati and Bhopal respectively. He also points out that subsequent to the impugnedorders, a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order passed by the Orissa High Court in the case of Sandeep Yadav hadbeen dismissed. He points out that W.P. (C) 4968/2021andconnected 3 of 3 even a Review Petition filed by the Union of India before the Orissa High Court had been dismissedon 09th April, 2021. He contends that the aforesaid facts need to be taken into account by the respondents while passing a fresh order, even if they intendto extendthe suspension period. He lastly states that the respondents havenot correctly determined the subsistence allowance to be paid to the petitioners in accordance with FR 53.

5. This Court finds merit in the submission of the learnedcounsel for the petitioners. Consequently, this Court directs therespondents to re-consider the issue of extension of suspension of the petitioners.

6. Let a reasoned order be passed by the respondents taking into account the aforesaid arguments urgedby learned counsel for thepetitioners within four weeks. This Court clarifiesthat it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of thecontroversy. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petitions along with pendingapplicationsare disposed of.

7. The order be uploaded on the websiteforthwith.Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN,J NAVIN CHAWLA, J MAY 17, 2021 KA