STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. A K JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dated 19 th February, 2010, in Original Application No. 482 of 2007. The said Original Application was filed by respondent No. 1, who, at the relevant time, was an Additional Commissioner of Police working under the Government of Maharashtra to challenge his suspension; and, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to revoke his suspension with further direction to reinstate him with effect from 16 th September, 2000 and to treat the period of suspension as on duty and grant the arrears of pay, allowances, perquisites, increments and all other benefits to him forthwith.

(2.) To buttress the reliefs claimed by respondent No. 1 in the Original Application, he had primarily contended that the Competent Authority, having failed to review the order of suspension within the time specified as per sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules", for the sake of brevity), his continued suspension was rendered illegal and without authority of law. The Tribunal accepted the said challenge and allowed the Original Application preferred by respondent No. 1 on the finding that the continued suspension of respondent No. 1 from 16 th September, 2000 was illegal, for which reason, the petitioners were directed to reinstate respondent No. 1 in service with retrospective effect from 16 th September, 2000 and respondent No. 1 be given all consequential benefits within four days from the date of receipt of the order.

(3.) The Original Application was resisted by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the Original Application suffered from delay and laches. In that, to question the validity of continued suspension on and from 16 th September, 2000, the Original Application was filed by respondent No. 1 on 27 th August, 2007. Secondly, respondent No. 1 ought to have resorted to remedy of appeal provided under the Rules against his continued suspension. On merits, the principal argument of the petitioners was that respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension in exercise of powers under Rule 3(3) of the said Rules. For that reason, the Competent Authority was not obliged to review the order of suspension or to issue formal order of extension of suspension, as the Order of Suspension dated 17 th June, 2000, in law, ought to enure until the termination of criminal proceedings relating to the charge of corruption pending against respondent No. 1.