UNION OF INDIA Vs. R.C. BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 5th April 2006 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2261/2005.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent was working as Income Tax Officer (Group B) . On 26.06.1997 a trap was laid down by CBI wherein he was caught red handed for accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/ -. A case was registered against him under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was taken into custody on the same date i.e. on 26.06.1997 and was released on bail on 1.7.1997. Since the respondent was detained in the custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 16.7.1997, passed under Sub -Rule 2 of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1965') w.e.f. 26.6.1997. Later he was acquitted vide order dated 12.8.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi on the ground that the complainant had died and there was no other evidence to corroborate the trap laid down against him. As a result of his acquittal in the said case, the respondent vide his letter dated 29.8.2005 made a request to the petitioners to revoke the order of his suspension and to direct his reinstatement and also to regularise his past services treating him on duty w.e.f. 26.6.1997 along with the release of all consequential benefits etc. The petitioner vide order dated 9th September 2005 not only rejected the request of the respondent but also extended his suspension for a further period of 180 days or till the date of his superannuation whichever is early from the date of the said order.

(3.) MR . Manish Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were two criminal cases registered against the respondent both under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 while the respondent was acquitted in one criminal case but another case was of possessing disproportionate assets was still pending against him and thus by order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the petitioner, the suspension period of respondent was further extended for a period of 180 days or till the date of his superannuation, whichever is earlier from the date of the order. The counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has misinterpreted the import of the judgment in Rajeev Kumar (supra) which is very much in consonance with the order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the petitioners. The counsel also argued that once the suspension order comes to an end, the same can be modified and revoked by another order as envisaged under Rule 12(5) (c) and till such an order is passed, the earlier order continues by operation of Rule 10(5) (a) of the Rules, 1965 and the employee has no right to be regulated in the services. Counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment also made it clear that Rule 10(5) (b) of the Rules, 1965 can only be pressed into service when any other disciplinary proceedings is also commenced than the one during which suspension or deemed suspension was already in force. Counsel thus submits that the opinion of the learned Tribunal as to the application of Rule 10(5) (b) of the Rules, 1965 is absolutely misplaced and the same has no relevance to the factual matrix of the present case. Counsel thus submits that the respondent's deemed suspension and extension therefore in terms of Rule 10(2) (b) and 10(5) (a) of the Rules, 1965 is very much followed by the force of law and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court of reinstatement of the respondent with the release of consequential benefits is arbitrary and contrary to the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.