ASHOKBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL Vs. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 21/1/2021 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in Original Application No. 227 of 2020 as well as order dtd. 5/3/2021 passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No. 3 of 2021 in Original Application No. 227 of 2020, by which, the application made by the petitioner to quash and set aside the suspension order on the ground that the concerned authority has not followed the statutory provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and particularly, Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was rejected.

(2.) Mr. Ronith Joy, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the Tribunal has committed error in refusing the application in view of mandatory provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and particularly, Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He would submit that by order dtd. 27/1/2020, the petitioner was put under suspension with immediate effect and departmental inquiry was sought to be initiated and thereafter, by order dtd. 30/4/2020, the period of suspension was extended for 90 days and thereafter, again, by order dtd. 24/7/2020, the period of suspension was continued for further period not exceeding 180 days. He would further submit that the orders dtd. 30/4/2020 and 24/7/2020 extending the period of suspension are illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside. He would further submit that the suspension order does not say that the petitioner is put under suspension is subject to the provisions of the Postal Manual. He would further submit that as per Chapter-2 of Suspension-A Digest Point No. 10 and Rule-19 of the Postal Manual Volume-III, the petitioner was put under suspension with immediate effect i.e. 27/1/2020 but on the same date, the petitioner was on leave and the suspension order was communicated to the petitioner on 3/2/2020 and thus, the date of suspension shall be counted from 3/2/2020 as the petitioner was communicated on 3/2/2020 and not from the date of suspension order i.e. 27/1/2020 because in cases where the Government Servant is already on leave or absent without prior permission and hence, not performing any official duties, the order of suspension, if any, should normally be given effect to only from the date of the said Government Servant returns from the leave. He would further submit that the petitioner was already reinstated subject to departmental inquiry and therefore, it is a question of three month's salary, which is required to be dealt with by this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. P.Y.Divyeshwar, learned advocate for the respondent, has opposed this petition and supported the decision delivered by the Tribunal. He would submit that it is an undisputed fact that when the first suspension order dtd. 27/1/2020 was passed, the petitioner was on leave and when he resumed the duty, the order was served on 3/2/2020. He would submit that second suspension order dtd. 30/4/2020 is within prescribed period of Rule - 6 of the Rules, 1965. He would submit that Chapter-2 of Suspension-A Digest Point No. 10 and Rule-19 of the Postal Manual Volume-III makes it clear that the date of effect of suspension would come from the date when the employee resumes his duty. He would submit that provision about mentioning the effect is not mandatory and therefore, the Tribubal has rightly dismissed the original application filed by present petition. He would further submit that during pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner is already charge sheeted and the inquiry is going on against the petitioner. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed.