AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor of Tripura Institute of Technology, was placed under suspension vide order No.F.9(2-27)-DHE/C&G/2017/2383(3) dated 05.12.2017 with immediate effect.
Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that till now there is no review of the suspension order in terms of the Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Rule 6 supra, clearly provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.
For taking up of this exercise, Rule 7 clearly provides as follows:
"7. An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.
Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later."
This court has been extensively referred to Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
The petitioner has made a serious allegation that neither the memorandum of charge has been framed nor there was any review by the competent authority who can modify or revoke the suspension order. Thus, it has been contended that the suspension order be deemed to have been revoked, in terms of Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
To verify the fact, as relevant, the averments and documents may be visited. The respondents have filed their reply without dealing with these aspects of the matter. By the order dated 13.12.2018 this court had asked them to produce the file where the proceeding of the review has been recorded. The respondents were further asked to produce such record on 14.12.2018. On that day, no such record could be produced. This court, had for substantive ends of justice, extended the time for production of the records by the order dated 14.12.2018. Today Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA has produced the record, but not the original. It has been submitted that the original file is lying in the custody of the Director General of Police, Tripura.
This court is really taken aback how a file relating to the order of suspension, as the action was taken by the Higher Education Department, can be in the custody of the Director General of Police. Be that as it may, this court will refrain from dwelling upon that aspect of the matter. The administration shall introspect.
Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA has, based on the said records, submitted that the order of revocation has been signed by the competent authority on 17.12.2018. Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA has produced a copy of the said order dated 17.12.2018. It can be had from the order of suspension that the order of suspension has been reviewed for further continuation of 90(ninety) days. The said order after review has been passed on 17.12.2018. Before that, whether there was any review or not, is not reflected anywhere in the said order.
The order of suspension was made on 05.12.2017.
The first review was to be held on or before 04.03.2018. In this regard, there is no record that there was a review and as such, after 04.03.2018 by operation of Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the order of suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked by the competent authority for absence of any review as required by the rules, supra.
The record that has been produced today does not reflect anywhere the minutes of the review. Merely, a note has been produced and the said notes do contain that the order of suspension was reviewed but no record is available before this court. The said note cannot save the situation and accordingly, this suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked by operation of Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. In effect, the suspension order stands revoked.
In terms thereof, this petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.