NAGACHANDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant joined the Indian Statistical Service on 05.05.1999. He was promoted to the Senior Time Scale on 22.09.2005. He was placed under suspension on 04.08.2009. The suspension order was revoked on 13.08.2010.

(2.) THE applicant has filed this O.A. with the following prayer: - 8.1 to allow the present application; 8.2 to quash the impugned Order of Revocation of Suspension (Annexure : A -1) as bad in law inasmuch as it is detrimental to the Applicant; 8.3 to declare that the period spent by the Applicant on suspension (04.08.2009 to 13.08.2010) should be treated as duty for all purposes; 8.4 to direct the Respondent Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to pay the Applicant full salary for the periods spent by the Applicant on suspension (04.08.2009 to 13.08.2010) immediately; 8.5 to direct the Respondent Ministry to pay the Applicant interest @18% per annum, compounded monthly, on the arrears of pay that is due to the Applicant from the date the amount was due; 8.6 to direct the Respondent Ministry to order an inquiry into the conduct of Respondent No.2, who has been illegally misusing his position to personally harm the Applicant; 8.7 to issue any such and further order/directions this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and 8.8 to allow exemplary costs of the application. 3. The suspension order (Annexure A -2) was issued on 04.08.2009 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The applicant filed OA -1488/2010 challenging the suspension order which was decided on 25.10.2010 with the following observations: - 18. In view of above, it cannot be stated that applicant was suspended due to any malice or his continued suspension was without any valid reason. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere in this case. However, before we part, we would like to direct the respondents to issue the charge sheet at the earliest, i.e., within 4 weeks so that applicant may defend himself and matter may be taken to a logical conclusion. 19. With the above direction, this OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs. However, before the O.A. was decided, the suspension order was revoked on 13.08.2010.

(3.) THE present O.A. was filed on 28.04.2011 and notice was issued to the respondents on 02.05.2011. Before filing of this O.A., the competent authority passed an order (vide Memorandum dated 21.03.2011) initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule -14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the applicant asking him to submit his written statement of defence within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Memorandum. Thereafter, a notice was issued vide Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2011 under Sub -Rule (5) of FR 54 -B intimating the applicant the proposal to limit his pay and allowances to the subsistence allowance already granted to the applicant during the period of suspension keeping in view the pendency of disciplinary proceeding against him. He was asked to make his representation, if any, to the proposed order. Since no representation was received, he was asked once again on 19.08.2011 (Annexure R -7) to submit his representation to the aforesaid notice within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of that O.M. The applicant filed his representation on 01.09.2011 requesting the respondents to withdraw the show cause notice. Finally, the respondent authorities vide their order dated 18.10.2011 (page -157) considered his representation and held that the judgment of the Honble High Court cited by the applicant related to a case of abnormal delay in issue of chargesheet and similar delay in treatment of the suspension period. It was further observed that factually the case of the applicant was distinguishable. In the aforesaid premise, it was decided to limit the pay and allowances of the applicant during the period of his suspension to what was paid to him by way of subsistence allowance and further to treat the period of suspension as such till disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were finalized.