KHALEEL RAHIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of respondentState Trading Corporation India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'STC'), who stands suspended vide order of 18th November, 2016 (Annexure P-1) as disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him. A Show-Cause Notice of 1 st May, 2017 (Annexure P-2) was served upon petitioner as to why disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against him. It is the case of petitioner that by way of a Representation of 8 th May, 2017, petitioner had sought detailed clarification to enable him to reply to the Show-Cause Notice.

(2.) Petitioner is a Board Level Officer and after six months of his suspension, his subsistence allowance was increased from 50% to 75% of his Basic Pay, but review of his suspension was not undertaken as Rule 22 of The State Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees' (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975') has no provision for review of suspension. However, as per office notings produced before the Court by respondents, review of petitioner's suspension was contemplated as petitioner vide Representation of 15th March, 2017 had sought revocation of his suspension. It is evident from first respondent's Communication of 28th March, 2017 (Annexure P-7) that comments upon petitioner's Representation seeking revocation of suspension were called by first respondent from respondent-STC.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has strongly relied upon Office Memorandum of 23rd August, 2016 (Annexure P-5) to submit that order of suspension should not extend beyond three months and if within this period, charge-sheet is not served upon the concerned officer, then suspension in such a case would lapse and a close watch needs to be kept at all levels to ensure that the charge-sheets are issued in time. It is pointed out by petitioner's counsel that the aforesaid O.M. (Annexure P5) has been issued in light of Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291. Illustrious service record of petitioner is sought to be highlighted by petitioner's counsel and it is projected that petitioner is being victimized.