KHALEEL RAHIM vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

Petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of respondentState Trading Corporation India Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘STC’),

who stands suspended vide order of 18th November, 2016 (Annexure P-1) as disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him. A Show-Cause

Notice of 1st May, 2017 (Annexure P-2) was served upon petitioner as to why disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against him. It is the

case of petitioner that by way of a Representation of 8th May, 2017, petitioner had sought detailed clarification to enable him to reply to the Show-

Cause Notice.

Petitioner is a Board Level Officer and after six months of his suspension, his subsistence allowance was increased from 50% to 75% of his Basic

Pay, but review of his suspension was not undertaken as Rule 22 of The State Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees’ (Conduct,

Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1975’) has no provision for review of suspension. However, as per

office notings produced before the Court by respondents, review of petitioner’s suspension was contemplated as petitioner vide Representation of

15th March, 2017 had sought revocation of his suspension. It is evident from first respondent’s Communication of 28th March, 2017 (Annexure P-

7) that comments upon petitioner’s Representation seeking revocation of suspension were called by first respondent from respondent-STC.

Learned counsel for petitioner has strongly relied upon Office Memorandum of 23rd August, 2016 (Annexure P-5) to submit that order of

suspension should not extend beyond three months and if within this period, charge-sheet is not served upon the concerned officer, then suspension in

such a case would lapse and a close watch needs to be kept at all levels to ensure that the charge-sheets are issued in time. It is pointed out by

petitioner’s counsel that the aforesaid O.M. (Annexure P-5) has been issued in light of Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary

v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291. Illustrious service record of petitioner is sought to be highlighted by petitioner’s counsel and it is projected

that petitioner is being victimized.

Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioner’s counsel to Rule 39 of the aforesaid Rules of 1975 to submit that notwithstanding anything

contained in these Rules, the instructions/orders and clarifications issued by Central Vigilance Commission and the Government of India from time to

time shall be applicable to the employees of respondent-STC. So, it is submitted by petitioner’s counsel that in the face of aforesaid O.M.

(Annexure P-5), petitioner’s suspension has already lapsed and thus, impugned order (Annexure P-1) deserves be set aside, with all consequential

benefits.

While entertaining this petition, learned counsel for first respondent was called upon to apprise this Court about the fate of petitioner’s

Representation seeking revocation of his suspension. Today, learned counsel for first respondent has produced before the Court the office notings

which deal with petitioner’s Representation seeking revocation of suspension and regarding preparation of draft charge-sheet. As per these office

notings, draft charge-sheet has been submitted for approval. However, no orders on petitioner’s Representation seeking revocation of suspension

have been passed.

In such a situation, prolonged suspension of petitioner and the inaction of first respondent to pass orders on petitioner’s Representation is wholly

unjustified. Learned counsel for first respondent was told on the last date of hearing that this Court would pass effective orders today, if

petitioner’s Representation is not decided. In view of inaction of respondents, this Court is constrained to consider this petition on merits as it

would be pointless to now direct first respondent to give a speaking response to petitioner’s Representation. It is so said because the stand taken

on behalf of first respondent is that the aforesaid Rules of 1975 do not contemplate review of suspension.

On behalf of respondents, it is asserted that the aforesaid O.M. (Annexure P-5) relied upon by petitioner’s counsel does not bind respondent-

STC.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned suspension order (Annexure P-1), material on record and the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra),

I find that in view of Rule 39 of the aforesaid Rules of 1975, respondents cannot assert that the aforesaid O.M. (Annexure P5) does not bind them.

Infact, the aforesaid O.M. (Annexure P-5) is based on Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). Relevantly, the aforesaid

O.M. (Annexure P-5) reproduces the operative paragraph from the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), which mandates that the suspension

order should not extend beyond the period of three months and during this period, the charge-sheet should be served upon the delinquent officer.

Undisputedly, no charge-sheet has been served upon petitioner and in view of protracted suspension of petitioner, I find that there is no justification to

further prolong petitioner’s suspension for an indefinite period, as till date, charge-sheet has not been served upon petitioner.

In light of the dictum of Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and in view of aforesaid O.M. of 23rd August, 2016 (Annexure P5),

impugned suspension order (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed with direction to respondent-STC to grant consequential relief to petitioner within two

weeks.

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.