AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
The present Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a)direct the respondents to revoke the suspension of the applicant, effected by suspension order dt.8-03-2018 and extended by subsequent various orders including the order dated 23/07/2025 with further direction to the respondents to allow and release the enhanced/revised suspension allowance w.e.f from 8-06-2018 along with arrears and appropriate interests; AND/OR
(b)pass such other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper.”
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:-
The applicant, a PGT (Maths) in the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.03.2018 in connection with FIR No. 193/2017. It is submitted that his name was not mentioned in the FIR, and despite the passage of several years, the police have not charge-sheeted him in the criminal case. He contended that the allegations in the FIR related to leakage of a question paper for a recruitment examination, whereas he had no duty or role in the conduct of the said examination. He therefore submitted that his continued suspension is unjustified.
He further submitted that the second Charge Memorandum dated 09.09.2021 arose out of the same FIR and the departmental inquiry conducted against the applicant and other officials culminated in the Inquiry Report dated 29.02.2024, wherein the charges against the applicant were held ‘not proved’. The subsequent Disagreement Note is stated to be based essentially on the alleged confessional statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which has been specifically denied by the applicant, and that there is no independent or corroborative evidence against him.
Learned counsel submitted that while Shri Hari Om Meena has already been reinstated and the suspension of Shri Mukesh Kumar Meena has been directed to be revoked by this Tribunal, the applicant has continued under suspension since 08.03.2018. It was further pointed out that, unlike the said officials, the applicant has not been charge-sheeted by the police in the criminal case.
He contended that the departmental inquiry having substantially concluded in the applicant’s favour and there being no independent evidence presently shown against him, his continued suspension for more than seven years ceased to serve any legitimate purpose, particularly when there is no reasonable possibility of his influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The learned counsel contended that successive orders extending his suspension were passed mechanically and without assigning adequate reasons. According to him, each extension ought to have been supported by reasons demonstrating the continued necessity of suspension; an order extending suspension without reasons violates principles of natural justice.
Relying upon FR 53, the applicant has claimed enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% with effect from 08.06.2018, i.e. when 90 days expired from the date of his initial suspension, along with arrears and interest. The applicant had earlier submitted a representation seeking enhancement of subsistence allowance, and also filed OA No. 722/2021 which was disposed of this Tribunal vide order dated 01.04.2021 with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the applicable rules, including FR 53. However, the respondents rejected his representation vide an unspeaking order dated 19.08.2021.
The learned counsel argued that the applicant is a Group ‘B’ employee and the Director of Education has no power to suspend the applicant, hence, the order of suspension is nullity in law. He further argued that once the suspension is a void order, its extension by the competent authority does not give it a seal of approval. In the present case, a void order of suspension was extended from time to time since 08.03.2018 by the Director of Education, the incompetent authority until the competent authority, i.e. the Chief Secretary, extended it further illegally vide order dated 23.07.2025.
In support of his contentions, he has also placed reliance upon the following case laws:
Sarup Singh & Anr. vs Union of India & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 514 (paras 19 to 23);
Marathawada University vs Seeshrao Balawant Rao Chavan, 1989 AIR 1582;
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, AIR 1999 SC 22;
CAT Order dated 02.02.2026 in O.A No.4058/2025 Hari Singh vs GNCTD & Ors.; and
Order dated 11.02.2026 in O.Α No.3281/2025 Dinesh Singh Kushwaha vs GNCTD & Anr.
On the above grounds, the applicant seeks revocation of his suspension and release of the enhanced/revised subsistence allowance from 08.06.2018, together with arrears and appropriate interest.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, placing reliance upon the averments made in their short reply, submitted that the present O.A. is not maintainable, as the applicant has failed to avail the statutory and efficacious remedy of appeal against the order of suspension available under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is contended that in view of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant ought to have exhausted the remedies available under the relevant service rules before approaching this Tribunal.
The respondents contended that, having regard to the grave and highly sensitive allegations against the applicant and the fact that criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings are still underway, his reinstatement at this stage would prejudice the ongoing proceedings and would be against public interest. It is submitted that suspension is not a punishment or penalty, but a preventive and precautionary measure intended to ensure that the delinquent employee does not interfere with the investigation, influence witnesses or tamper with records, so as to facilitate a fair, free and impartial inquiry and to maintain the integrity of the administrative process.
It is further submitted that the applicant’s suspension has been periodically reviewed by the competent authority within the prescribed time and has been extended only after considering all relevant factors, including the nature and gravity of the allegations and the status of the proceedings. The respondents specifically denied that the suspension was continued mechanically or arbitrarily and maintained that the same is lawful and justified.
The respondents submitted that the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the applicant have not yet attained finality and are presently at a crucial and intermediate stage before the Disciplinary Authority and a disagreement note has also been issued on the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, any interference by this Hon’ble Tribunal at this stage would be premature and would amount to pre-empting the statutory disciplinary process.
With regard to the applicant’s claim of parity with Shri Hari Om Meena and Shri Mukesh Meena, the respondents submitted that the claim is misconceived and untenable in law, as every disciplinary case has to be considered on its own facts, evidence and attendant circumstances. According to the respondents, the role attributed to and the factual circumstances concerning the said officials are materially different from those of the applicant.
The respondents further contended that the criminal proceedings arising from the allegations are still pending and that the departmental witnesses are colleagues/subordinates of the applicant. His reinstatement at this stage, therefore, carries a risk of influencing or pressurising witnesses and prejudicing the evidence and ongoing proceedings. According to the respondents, the applicant has failed to establish any mala fide, arbitrariness or any procedural illegality in placing or continuing his suspension, warranting judicial interference. The scope of judicial interference in suspension matters is extremely limited.
The respondents denied that the applicant was illegally suspended and submitted that he was rightly placed under suspension in view of the grave and serious allegations relating to leakage of examination papers and evasion of investigation. It is further submitted that the matter is presently under active consideration of the competent authority and as on date, no final decision has been taken. Hence, the present OA is premature and not maintainable, and is liable to be dismissed.
In rejoinder to the averments put forth by the respondents’ counsel, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the primary issue involved in the present case pertains to the power of the Director of Education in issuing the suspension order dated 08.03.2018 and subsequent extensions. The matter is squarely covered by the order of this Tribunal dated 01.12.2023 in O.A. No. 3096/2018 titled Rajesh Kumar Balara vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and batch, which is affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide Judgment dated 14.11.2024, wherein it has been ruled that in case of TGT, a Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted employee, the Chief Secretary, GNCTD is the competent authority and not the Director of Education, GNCTD. Therefore, the suspension order and subsequent extensions being void ab initio deserves to be quashed with all consequential reliefs.
Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides at length and carefully gone through the pleadings/judgments placed on record as well as written synopsis filed on behalf of the applicant.
The issue is no longer res integra, having been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3096/2018 titled Rajesh Kumar Balara and decided vide Order dated 01.12.2023, wherein it has been held as under:
"10.Considering what has been elaborately is stated above, we are of the opinion that the proceedings initiated against the applicants have been done in contravention to the statutory rules. It is the Chief Secretary, and only the Chief Secretary, who was the competent Disciplinary Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the applicants. Since there contravention of the statutory provisions of the rules is stark, we do not deem it necessary to go into the rest of the merits of the case.”
The aforesaid Order has further been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 14.11.2024, and also followed by this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 4058/2025 and 3281/2025.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the applicant was working as PGT (Maths), a Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted employee, at the time of his suspension. The initial order of suspension dated 08.03.2018 was admittedly passed by the Director of Education, GNCTD, having no statutory competence to suspend the applicant. Consequently, the subsequent orders passed by the Director of Education extending such suspension could not cure or validate the inherent lack of jurisdiction in the original order. Merely because the subsequent extension order dated 23.07.2025 was issued by the Chief Secretary, the same cannot be construed as retrospectively validating an order, which was void at its inception.
The respondents’ objection regarding exhaustion of the appellate remedy under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 also cannot defeat the challenge where the very competence of the authority passing the impugned order is under question. Significantly, the applicant has remained under suspension for more than seven years, the departmental Inquiry Officer has returned the charges against him as ‘not proved’, and the criminal case has not culminated in a charge-sheet against him.
In these circumstances, the continued suspension, originating from an order passed by an authority not competent in law to suspend the applicant, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in accordance with the ratio laid down in Rajesh Kumar Balara (supra), as affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
The Apex Court Judgment in Sarup Singh (supra), relied upon by the applicant, is also relevant wherein it has been held that an order passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction is non-est and void ab initio and that such invalidity can be questioned even at a subsequent stage or in collateral proceedings (para 19). This principle has recently been applied in O.A. No. 4058/2025 in the case of Hari Singh, where in the context of a Group ‘B’ non-gazetted employee of GNCTD, this Tribunal held that the order passed by the Director of Education, rather than the competent authority, was a nullity and set it aside.
In view of the aforesaid, we allow the O.A. with the following directions:
The suspension order dated 08.03.2018 and subsequent extension orders are quashed and set aside;
Consequently, the applicant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, as would accrue, in accordance with the relevant rules/instructions on the subject.
The respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the applicant, if they so decide, in accordance with law and relevant rules.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.