Ajay Kumar vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant joined service of Archaeological Survey of India in February 1990, by way of compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, who was an employee of the same Organization. He is said to have obtained a Diploma in Civil Engineering in 1995. The respondents invited applications for appointment to the post of Conservation Assistant Grade-II, and the applicant has responded to the same. He was selected and appointed as Conservation Assistant Grade-II on 15.02.2007. His probation is said to have been declared in 2009. On 16.08.2016, the applicant was placed under suspension pending departmental inquiry. On 08.09.2016, he was issued a charge memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCs (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was alleged that the applicant got appointed as Conservation Assistant Grade-II on the basis of a Certificate, which is from an Institute not recognized by the statutory authority. Thereafter, the suspension was extended from time to time. The last of such orders being, of 14.08.2020.

This OA is filed with a prayer to the respondents to revoke the continuity of suspensions of the applicant.

The applicant contends that his selection and appointment was after verification of the records and there was absolutely no basis for suspending him and at any rate, for continuing him under suspension for the past 4 years.

The OA was earlier listed for admission hearing. On finding that the suspension being considered almost for a period exceeding more than 4 years, we required the learned counsel for the Respondents to obtain instructions. Today, it is represented that the delay was on account of the fact that the Institution, which grants recognition to the course, is yet to respond.

We heard Mr.Kunal Malik, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Ms.Ashwariya Dubey representing Mr.Hilal Haider, learned counsel for the Applicant.

The applicant joined the service of the respondent Organization on compassionate basis. Thereafter, he came to be appointed as Conservation Assistant in the year 2007, so much so, that his probation was also declared in the year 2009. In case, the respondents were of the view that the appointment of the applicant as Conservation Assistant was contrary to rules or that he did not hold the requisite qualifications, the action in that behalf ought not to have taken so much time. It is just a question of verification from the concerned agency about the validity or otherwise of the certificate held by the applicant.

Whatever be the reason for the non-conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings even after 4 years, there was no plausible reason of continuing the applicant under suspension for such a long period. It is not just the case of the applicant undergoing hardship. Even from the point of view of the respondents, the payment of subsistence allowance, almost equivalent to the salary without extracting work from the applicant is not at all in the interest of the administration. The allegation against the applicant is not the one of Corruption or insubordination.

No useful purpose would be served by continuing the applicant under suspension even after four years. Obviously, for this reason, the reviewing committee directed that the proceedings shall be concluded within two months.

Under these circumstances, we allow the OA directing that the applicant shall be reinstated into service forthwith. The disciplinary authority shall also expedite the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings as early as possible, preferably within three months. There shall be no order as to costs.