UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUB INSPECTOR SANJAY SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue raised in this petition relates to applicability of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965 to the officials of the Delhi Police. We may mention at the outset that in view of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, suspensibn of the respondent herein is set aside. In this petition filed by the petitioners, including the commissioner of Police, primary contention is that these Rules do not govern the matters of discipline of the employees of the Delhi Police. Rule 10, as it originally stood, was amended vide Notification dated 23/12/2003 published in the Gazette of India dated 3/1/2004 read with corrigendum dated 29/3/2004 published in the Gazette of India dated 4/4/2004. By this amendment, sub-rules (6) and (7) were added thereto, which are given effect to from 2/6/2004. Sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 are to the following effect:-

(2.) AS per sub-rule (6), an order of suspension made under sub-rule (6) or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (2) is to be reviewed by the competent authority before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. While undertaking this exercise of review, suspension order can be extended or revoked. If it is decided to extend the suspension order, such an order of suspension is to be reviewed before the expiry of extended period of suspension. Extension in one go can be for a period upto 180 days at time. Therefore, before the expiry of each extended period of suspension, there has to be subsequent review. In case the initial suspension is not reviewed within 90 days, consequence thereof is provided under sub-rule (7), namely, such an order of suspension shall not be valid after a period of 90 days.

(3.) IN the present case, an FIR was registered against the respondent herein on 3. 3. 2004 under the provision of the prevention of Corruption Act alleging that while working as a Sub-Inspector, Police Station Vasant Kunj,new Delhi, the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as bribe from Sh. Om Prakash, complainant, for getting his relatives released on bail from the Court of Sh. V. P. Vaish, mm, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, wherein a bail application was listed for hearing on 3. 3. 2004. He was arrested on the same day and the disciplinary authority, by an order of even date, placed him under suspension with effect from 3. 3. 2004. This order further stipulated that during the period of first three months of his suspension, he would draw sustenance allowance at a rate equivalent to the leave salary which he would have drawn had he been on leave on half average pay and in addition, dearness allowance based on such leave salary. Vide orders dated 16/11/2004, sustenance allowance of the respondent was increased by 50% of the sustenance allowance already drawn by him under FR-53. This increase was made effective from 3/6/2004, i. e. after the expiry of initial period of three months.