HASMUKHRAI ARJANBHAI PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this letters patent appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant - original petitioner whereby, he had challenged the order of suspension dated 28.12.2016 as well as initiation of inquiry against him by issuing charge-sheet dated 28.12.2016.

(2.) Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate with Ms. Avni H. Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant invited the attention of the court to the First Statutes for all National Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Statutes, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amending Statutes"enacted by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of section 26 of the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act , 2007, to point out that by virtue of clause 15 of the Amending Statutes clause 26 of the Principal Statutes which provided for "Suspension, Penalties, Disciplinary Proceedings" stands substituted and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 have been made applicable to all the employees. Reference was made to rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules") which provides for 'suspension'. It was pointed out that under sub-rule 6 thereof, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under that rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass order either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for period exceeding 180 days at a time. It was submitted that, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to review the suspension order within 90 days of the coming into force of the amended statutes with effect from 21.07.2017 and in absence of such review the suspension order has lapsed.

(3.) Vehemently opposing the appeal, Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the order of suspension has been made under clause 26 of the Principal Statutes whereas, sub-rule (6) of rule 10 of the rules applies to an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under that rule. It was submitted that the order of suspension having not been made or deemed to have been made under rule 10 of the rules, the provisions of sub-rule (6) of rule 10 would not be applicable. Consequently, the question of reviewing the suspension order within 90 days from the date of coming into force of Amending Statutes would not arise. It was urged that the court may consider the nature of the charges which are grave and serious in nature, especially in view of the fact that the contention with regard to lapsing of the order of suspension has not been raised before the learned Single Judge. It was urged that considering the fact that the learned Single Judge has ordered that the inquiry be completed by 31.12.2018, this court may not interfere and in the event the court is of the view that sub-rule (6) of rule 10 of the rules is applicable to the facts of the present case, the Review Committee may be given an opportunity to review the suspension order; however, no interim relief may be granted to the appellant herein.