WP(C) 2158/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND,MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR,TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNA CHAL PRADESH) WP(C) NO.2158 OF 2009 Sri C.V. Sivaji, AEE(CIV) GO/No.3324W, H.Q. 23 BRTF(GREF), C/O 99 APO. & &.. & petitioner. - Vs - 1. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, Transport Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Secretary, Boarder Roads Development Board, 4th Floor, B Wing Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Director General Boarder Roads, Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road, Nariana, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi-110010. 4. The Chief Engineer, Project Vartak, C/O 99 APO. 5. The Commander, 44 BRTF, C/O 99 APO. & &.. & Respondent s BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Ms. S. Nath, Mr. HK Das Advocates for the respondents : Mr. N. Borah, Asstt. SGI. Date of hearing and delivery of judgment & order : 23.08.2011 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Borah, learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondents-Union of India. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is the order of suspension issue d by the respondent authorities and further extension of the suspension order of the writ petitioner. 3. Facts, leading to filing of this writ petition, may be stated in brief, as follows:- The respondents-authority had initiated a departmental proceedin gs against the writ petitioner under the provisions of the Central Civil Service s(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965[in short, the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1 965] and put the petitioner on suspension basing on an FIR, lodged against him b y the Aalo P.S., Arunachal Pradesh, in the year 2007. 4. The writ petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the fact that even th ough he has been acquitted on merit by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aalo, Arunachal Pradehsh, in respect of the criminal proceedings, in itiated against him on the basis of the FIR, the respondent authorities have not yet revoked his suspension order, even on completion of the stipulated period o f 90(ninety) days in terms of the provisions of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submit ted that the respondent authorities most arbitrarily extended the suspension per iod of the petitioner by another six months w.e.f. 04.06.2009, which is illegal and arbitrary. 6. The Facts leading to filing of this writ petition discloses that 06.04.2006, the petitioner was assigned duties/ responsibilities of Road Sect or Tato from GO-3310W, and an IOC fuel tanker bearing No.AR-08-0401, consisting of 5400 liters of HSD, meant for Dett. Tato of 92 RCC, which was seized by the p olice personnel of Aalo P.S. from a civil petrol pump at Aalo on 18.01.2007. Acc ordingly, a police case vide No.05 of 2007 dated 18.01.2007, was registered unde r Sections 409/120(B)/411 IPC against the petitioner as well as some other offic ers of the Unit by Aalo P.S. for alleged sale deal of IOC fuel tanker, meant for GREF. 7. However, in the aforesaid P.S. case, the petitioner was discharg ed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aalo, West Siang District, v ide order dated 06.06.2008. The relevant extracts of the order read as follows: It is also found in the charge-sheet that the I.O. of the case also admitted th at the alleged printed materials has been shown receipt and deliver in records ( documentary evidence). Moreover there is also no independent witness to the alle ged offence. The only evidence relying by the police is the statement of all acc used persons which cannot be admitted as per section 25&26 of India Evidence Act . Moreover there is no record of complaint regarding shortage of HSD in the stoc k of GREF authority. Hearing from argument of both the parties and on perusal of records I am agreein g with the submission of the Defense Counsel and I have not find any other way t han to discharge the accused persons on above scores. Accordingly accused Sri K. Ashok, C.V. sivaji, A.F. Singh, Ram Lagan and Rajeev. B. are discharged from th e charges forthwith. Since no case can be proceeded and the main accused person discharged from the charges the Approver Sri Ani Choudhury, Jainath Rai and Zahi d Khan are also set at liberty. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that si nce the petitioner has been discharged from the criminal liabilities, continuati on of his suspension order, in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule 5(a) and 5(b) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, is illegal and arbitrary. It would be pertinent to extract hereinbelow the relevant procedures relating to suspension, as provided under Rule 10 of CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965. Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 10 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules,1965 reads as follows: (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by th e President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under s uspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pendin g; or (aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under inv estigation, inquiry or trial. Sub-Rule 5(a) and 5(b) of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 reads as follows: (5)(a) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule(7), an order of suspensio n made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in f orce until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. (b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended( whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any ot her disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of t hat suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for r easons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shal l continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such pr oceedings. Sub-Rule 7 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 reads as follows: (7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it i s 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 dee med suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be und er suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the nin ety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant det ained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detent ion is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later. Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 10 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 reads as follows: (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shal l be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, bef ore expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommen dation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders eithe r extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not b e for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that since the p etitioner was never arrested by the police, the continuance of suspension order under sub- Rule 5(a) and 5(b) of Rule 10 is not sustainable under the law. The o nly contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after discharge of the petitioner from the criminal proceeding the continuance of suspension or der and the continuance of the departmental proceeding is illegal , and accordin gly, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated in the service by closing the departmental proceedings . 10. Per contra, learned Asstt. SGI appearing for the respondents-Uni on of India, has submitted that the case of the petitioner has to be dealt under sub-rule 6 of Rule 10 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965, since the petitioner has al ready confessed his involvement in the incident. Learned counsel for the respond ents further submitted that sub-rule 6 of Rule 10 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, prescribed the mode of extension of suspension and its duration, whereas, sub-r ule 5(a), stipulates the validity/existence of an order of suspension. Similarly , sub-rule 5(b) confers the power on the disciplinary authority to continue the Government servants under suspension for different purposes like disciplinary ac tion, etc., which has been invoked in the present proceeding initiated against t he petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since a departmental enquiry is in progress against the petitioner on a distinctly sep arate charge, therefore, invoking of the provisions of sub-rule 5(a) and 5(b) in the instant case to the petitioner under suspension, cannot be treated to be illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted tha t even acquittal in a criminal case, a departmental enquiry or disciplinary proc eeding may be initiated, if evidence is available to prove the specific charges against the delinquent. 11. On careful perusal of the materials on records, I find that sinc e a departmental proceeding is in progress, continuance of the suspension order of the petitioner, issued by the respondent authorities, cannot be said to be ir regular and arbitrary. 12. However, in terms of the provisions of sub-rule 5 (c ) and 6 of Rule 10 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, the respondents-authority is required to review the suspension order . While doing so, may modify or revoke such susp ension order, on the recommendations of the Review Committee, constituted for th e purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subseque nt reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Ex tension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. 13. It appears from the record that the respondent authorities, ap parently, have neither considered and reviewed the need of continuance of the de partmental proceeding against the petitioner after his discharge from the crimin al proceeding initiated against him, nor it has reviewed the suspension order of the petitioner, in the light of the above consideration. 14. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition with a dir ection to the respondent authorities to review whether continuance of suspension order as well as prolongation of departmental proceedings is necessary in the l ight of the above development. The petitioner may also submit appropriate repres entation together with acetified copy of this order, in this regard, before the respondent authorities. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, t he respondent authorities shall consider such representation in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the representation. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision, rep orted in AIR 1979 SC 765 : State of Kerala vs. Kumari T.P. Rohana and (1979) 4 S CC 507, B.N. Ngarajan Vs Stae of Karnataka, prayed for quashing of the departmen tal proceeding. However, in view of the above order, I do not deem it justified to initiate the discussion in this writ petition, in which suspension of the pet itioner is only under challenge. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approa ch appropriate forum for redressal of such grievances, if so required. 16. With the above observations and directions noted above, this wri t petition is disposed of. However, I pass no order as to costs.