Sanjeev Kumar Jha vs Pension Fund Regulatory And Development Authority

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant joined the service of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA), the respondent herein, in the year 2011. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him with certain allegations and charges.

He was also placed under suspension vide order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure A-2) during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. After completion of the disciplinary inquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure A-11), imposing the punishment of reduction to the lower post of Manager for a period of two years from the date of the order. It was also mentioned that restoration to the post of Deputy General Manager will be subject to satisfactory performance. Through another order of even date (Annexure A-3), his suspension was revoked.

The applicant filed an appeal dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure A-12) under Regulation 90 of the PFRDA (Employees' Service) Regulations, 2015 against the order dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure A-11). The appellate authority vide its order dated 02.11.2017 (Annexure A-14) altered the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, to that of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years, with the stipulation that the applicant will not earn increments during the period of such reduction, and the same will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.

The applicant filed a representation on 09.10.2017 (Annexure A-13) with a prayer to quash the order of suspension, and to treat the period of suspension as on duty, and to extend the benefit of full pay and allowances. Thereafter, he submitted a letter dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure A- 15) requesting the Chairman of the respondent organization to place his representation dated 09.10.2017 before the PFRDA Board. Through the impugned communication dated 01.03.2018 (Annexure A-1), the respondent informed that the request cannot be acceded to. The same is challenged in this OA.

This OA is filed with a prayer to quash the communication dated 01.03.2018, and to declare that the order of suspension dated 01.09.2015 did not subsist after initial 90 days, since there was no review of suspension, and no charge-sheet has been filed. Other connected reliefs are also claimed.

We heard Shri Prateek Tushar Mohanty, learned counsel for the applicant, at the stage of admission itself, at length.

The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant culminated into an order of punishment, and the appellate authority reduced the punishment. The orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are not the subject matter of this OA.

The suspension ordered against the applicant on 01.09.2015 was revoked on 17.03.2016. The contention of the applicant is that the suspension lapsed on expiry of three months, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and for the subsequent period, he is entitled to be paid full salary. In this regard, he made a representation, but wanted that to be placed before the Board of the respondent organization. The only communication given in this behalf is that the request cannot be acceded to. The respondent is yet to take a decision on the representation made by the applicant, placing reliance upon the judgment of the court, and the relevant provisions of the Fundamental Rules. Mere refusal to place a representation before the Board, cannot give rise to any cause of action. The applicant is not able to point out any provision of law which places an obligation on the Board to entertain applications of the type submitted by the applicant. The affairs of the Board are governed by its own procedure. The applicant cannot compel the respondent to act in a particular manner. He has to await the reply on his representation by the appropriate authority.

Therefore, the OA is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, this order cannot be construed as a final pronouncement on the entitlement or otherwise, of the applicant to seek relief in relation to the period of suspension. He can pursue remedy in that behalf, depending upon the view which the respondent may express on the representation made by him in this behalf. There shall be no order as to costs.