PARASH RAM Vs. PARVIN SINCLAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS joint Original Application has been filed by four suspended officials of the Respondent -National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT for short). Their grievance is against the impugned identical orders dated 01.08.2013. It has been stated in the said orders that the Applicants No. 1 and 2 were placed under suspension with effect from 17.07.2012 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Rule 1 of Rule 10 of Rules, 1965. Similarly, the Applicants No. 3 and 4 were placed under suspension w.e.f. 19.07.2012 and 14.03.2012, respectively. Later on, all of them were served with charge Memo dated 12.09.2012 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Rules 1965 for short). Further, according to the said order, another Disciplinary Proceedings against them were contemplated for violating provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 during June, 2013 and the Director, NCERT, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10(5)(b) of the Rules 1965, ordered that their suspension shall continue until termination of the all or any of such proceedings. By the aforesaid order they were also informed that during the period their suspension remain in force, their Headquarters shall be NCERT, New Delhi and they shall not leave the Headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the Council. Thereafter, they were also served with another order dated 05.08.2013 debarring them from entering in any official premises of NCERT Headquarters, Delhi.

(2.) ONE of the applicants, Shri Ved Prakash challenged the aforesaid order of suspension earlier before this Tribunal vide OA No. 1006/2013. The other three Applicants along with four others have also filed similar OA No. 1007/2013 for the redressal of the same grievance. The contention of the Applicants in those OAs was that the said suspension orders were extended by subsequent orders in violation of the DOPT Circular dated 07.01.2004 and Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 according to which review of suspension was to be undertaken within 90 days from the date of suspension. Accepting the aforesaid contention, both the OAs were allowed by a common Order dated 06.11.2013. The relevant part of the said order reads as under: -

(3.) HOWEVER , in the case of the Applicants, the respondents filed Review Petition No. 193/2013 in OA No. 1006/2013 (supra) but the same was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2013. Thereafter, they have challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide WP(C) No. 1183/2014, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2014. The High Court considered the contention of the Respondents' counsel in the said order that no reason was forthcoming why the suspension in the case of the Applicants were not revoked when suspension in the case of other three Applicants in OA No. 1007/2013 was revoked. The relevant part of the said order reads as under: -