ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi, on an application filed before it, questioning the correctness of an order made by the respondent, compulsorily retiring the appellant from service, with effect from May 29, 1995, on the ground that he had overstayed in a foreign country, viz. , Libya beyond the period of authorised deputation. On a departmental enquiry, he was found guilty of the charges and was ordered to be compulsorily retired with effect from April 19,1988. That order was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order made on February 22,1990, set aside that order directing the disciplinary authority to consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the appellant, to make a representation in writing against the report of the enquiry officer. The tribunal made it clear that the provisions of Rule 10 (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules would be invoked to treat the appellant, as being under suspension from the date on which he was ordered to be compulsorily retired. An order to that effect was passed by the Government on August 16,1990. Thereafter, several opportunities, were given to the appellant to place his representation before - the enquiry authority as directed by the Tribunal, either before submitting the report or after submission of the report which was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter the order impugned before the Tribunal had been passed.

(2.) There was full compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal in the matter of allowing the appellant to make an appropriate representation and that representation has been duly considered by the enquiry authority and the disciplinary authority before passing the order. Therefore, we do not think that part of the matter need be looked into any further and therefore the proceeding ending with compulsory retirement of the appellant is in order and was rightly upheld by the Tribunal.

(3.) However, Mr. M. N. Krishnamani, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order now made does not state anything about the manner in which the period of suspension should be treated on the termination of enquiry, in the order dated May 29, 1995 as required under the relevant rules. He drew our attention to the specific provisions of Rule 23 of the CCS (Pension) Rules which enable that even in cases where a Government servant who was under suspension has not been exonerated, may state that the period of suspension shall count to such extent as it may declare for purpose of qualifying service and submitted that there is no application of mind to this aspect of the matter with the result that the appellant is deprived of that benefit. Learned senior Advocate Shri Mahajan for the respondent is not in a position to controvert the same. It is clear from the order made by the government that there was no application of mind to this aspect of the matter. In the circumstances, we do not think that there is any good reason to state that the appellant should be deprived of the benefit of counting qualifying service even though he had been placed under suspension, the only charge against him being one of overstaying beyond the period of deputation in a foreign country.