UNION OF INDIA Vs. AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner - Union of India is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereafter referred to as 'Tribunal') dated 22.05.2013, especially the operative portion which directs the Government to issue a chargesheet in a time bound manner to the respondent (hereafter referred to as 'applicant') failing which the latter's suspension would cease to be operative upon its expiry on 21.06.2013.

(2.) THE respondent, at the relevant time, was working as a Defence Estate Officer and was posted at Srinagar. Certain allegations of misconduct relating to the issuance of an NOC for disposal of lands which were subsequently found belonging to the Central Government, Ministry of Defence, were levelled. It transpired that the applicant had issued orders of revocation. His explanation was that the note recommending the course of action adopted by him was prepared by certain subordinates. He alleged that such subordinates and other employees who were in fact behind the move are continuing to work in the same posts that they were holding at the relevant time and that he along with one Vijay Kumar was targeted for hostile treatment. The Union of India issued an order placing Vijay Kumar and the applicant under suspension. In respect of the applicant, the first order of suspension was made on 30.09.2011. That was challenged by the applicant through proceedings before the Tribunal (i.e. OA 1057/2011). The Tribunal by its order dated 02.11.2012 noticed that a criminal case had been instituted and that investigations are on. At the same time, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the memorandum of the DoP&T dated 07.01.2004 prescribing the procedure and a time limit which was to govern while issuing suspension and its continuation has to be followed.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the Union of India that the discretion and right to exercise the power of suspension is guided by the facts and circumstances in every case and that the Tribunal's limiting such discretion by the impugned directions cannot be sustained. It was also argued that the Tribunal's findings that the Union Government had not applied its mind to the specific issues directed by it, i.e., OM dated 07.01.2004, is based upon an improper appreciation of the facts. In this regard, the counsel produced the relevant file to establish that such instructions had taken place; the Court has examined the same. Apart from the fact that the reference to the OM of 07.01.2004 can be found at more than one place, this Court also notices that some correspondence had ensued between the CBI and the competent authority of the petitioner. The letter of CBI dated 07.02.2013 indicated that the investigations were at a very advanced stage; likewise the letter dated 20.06.2013 stated that the investigation would be completed by July, 2013. In the light of these circumstances, yet another letter was written by the Government of India on 01.08.2013 eliciting a response from the CBI about the latest position. Counsel for the applicant submitted that no fault can be attributed to the Tribunal nor does any error attach to its directions. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant stressed upon the meaning and contents of the OM dated 07.01.2004 which, according to her, clearly state that in any case if no charge memo is issued to an employee beyond the period of a year, unless the official is in police or judicial custody or is accused of a serious crime or the matter involves national security, the Review Committee should as a matter of course not recommend extension of suspension.