ANIL KUMAR PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 11-2-2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 294 of 2002, whereunder the relief prayed for by the petitioner challenging his suspension order dated 29-12-2000 has not been granted and it has been held that in view of the development since the filing of the original application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the proper course of action in such circumstances would be to give a directing to the State Government to pass necessary orders in the background of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held on 24-12-2002 and this exercise be completed within one month from the date of receipt/production of the order by passing a speaking order. The impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal further goes to show that for the same cause of action, O.A. No. 902 of 2000 had been preferred, which had been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal after considering the claim and counter claim of the parties, as far as suspension of the petitioner is concerned, it was observed that no order need be passed with regard to giving further direction so far the suspension of the petitioner, which was under challenge, was concerned. The aforesaid original application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the matter within a period of one month.

(2.) The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that though admittedly he had earlier filed an original application being O.A. No. 902 of 2000 challenging his suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, but it has been further contended that in the aforesaid original application he had not taken the point of automatic revocation of the same after 90, days if by an order after reviewing the same was not extended for another period of 180 days, as per the Rules. As such, in the present original application it has been alleged that the tribunal has erred in dismissing his original application on the ground of res-judicata, rather it should have considered the rules and interpreted it and if the same was mandatory then it should have revoked the order of suspension without taking into consideration the stage of the departmental proceedings and the fact that the inquiry report has already been submitted and a show-cause has been served on him to explain as to why he be not dismissed from service.

(3.) This Court in view of the submissions and discussions made above and after going through the order of O.A. No. 902 of 2000, which clearly goes to show, specifically in paragraph 9 thereof, that it is desirable that matter relating to suspension is reviewed from time to time and appropriate decision taken by the competent authority on the issue whether there is need to continue the person concerned under suspension or same can be revoked without any prejudice to the departmental proceeding already initiated and further that the rules as per the revokation of the suspensions order are very clear, also hands that in the earlier order, the rules pertaining to suspension of a person in contemplation of a departmental proceedings was already considered in O.A. No. 902 of 2000 and the petitioner never felt aggrieved by the same, as he had neither moved this Court nor the Tribunal itself for initiating contempt, as its order had not been complied with, but instead thereof he has chosen to move the Central Administrative Tribunal again by filing a fresh original application being O.A. No. 294 of 2002. The Central Administrative Tribunal, to our mind, was right in going into the subsequent development, as the departmental proceedings had concluded and a show-cause had been issued to the petitioner as to why he be not dismissed from the service, it rightly directed the authorities of the State to dispose of the same within a period of one month. Half of the aforesaid period of the order dated 11 February, 2003 (Annexure-1) has already elapsed.