Ravi Shanker Srivastava IAS v. Union of India through the

Mr. Shanker Raju, Honble Member (J): As these OAs involve common facts and an identical question of law, are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Rule 3 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 provides in Part-II suspension and its consequences. A member of All India Service can be placed under suspension where article of charges have been drawn up by the State Government or Central Government under Rule 3 (1) for a period of 90 days, which is to be reviewed and valid till 180 days at a time. Rule 3 (2) of the Rules provides, on detention for a period of more than 48 hours in official custody, for deemed suspension of a member of the Service and Rule 3 (8) provides that a member of the Service who has been suspended on account of investigation or trial relating to a criminal charge at the discretion of the Government may be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings to the charge. Rule 3 (7) and 3 (8) are reproduced as under: (7)(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. (b) Where a member of the Service is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended, whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise, and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the member of Service shall continue to be under suspension subject to sub-rule (8). (c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or deemed to have made the order. (8)(a) An order of suspension made under this rule which has not been extended shall be valid for a period not exceeding ninety days and an order of suspension which has been extended shall remain valid for a further period not exceeding one hundred eighty days, at a time, unless revoked earlier. (b) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made or continued, shall be reviewed by the competent authority on the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee. (c) The composition and functions of the Review Committees and the procedure to be followed by them shall be as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules. (d) The period of suspension under sub rule (1) may, on the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee, be extended for a further period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time: Provided that where no order has been passed under this clause, the order of suspension shall stand revoked with effect from the date of expiry of the order being reviewed.

3. Having regard to the above, there is no impediment for the Government to place a member of the All India Service under suspension but within 90 days a review is to be made, which is not to remain valid beyond 180 days at a time unless revoked earlier and a subsequent review as per Rule 3 (8)(d) extends the period of suspension for a further period of 180 days at a time. However, when the review committee does not review a reviewed suspension further before 180 days and where no order has been passed within 180 days, the order of suspension would automatically stand revoked from the date of expiry of the order being reviewed.

4. With the aforesaid position of Rule, no doubt a person involved in a criminal case, more particularly in a corruption case, has no right to be reinstated in service but statutory rules in vogue have to hold the field and any infraction would entail consequences thereof.

5. Applicant, an IAS officer of 1985 batch of Rajasthan cadre was functioning in the super time scale on the post of Joint Secretary was posted as a Member of the Revenue Board, Ajmer, was implicated in FIR No.109 and 110 of 2004 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Applicant was placed under suspension on account of investigation of a criminal case on 12.6.2004. Applicant in OA-2622/2005 assailed the aforesaid suspension. An order passed on 24.1.2006, on the basis of DoP&T OM dated 7.1.2004, disposed of the OA with the following directions: 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present O.A. stands disposed of by directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith as per Para-3 of the DoP&T O.M. dated 7.1.2004. Of course, they are competent to hold a review meeting justifying any further material for continuation of suspension. No costs.

6. When applicant was neither reinstated nor was he accorded any consequential benefits, led to filing of CP No.70/2006 before the Tribunal, assailing non-compliance of the order in OA-2622/2005, wherein following directions have been issued: From the facts and circumstances of the case as placed before us, we are of the view that respondents have taken a few steps in respect of Firs 110 and 109 of 2004 towards prosecution of the petitioner therein. However, certainly the period of one year prescribed in DOP&T O.M. dated 7.1.2004 has elapsed. In view of the clarification offered on behalf of the respondents and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that respondents must take effective steps for prosecution of the petitioner, if necessary, by 31.5.2006, failing which respondents shall reinstate the petitioner by amending/withdrawing the suspension order dated 1.3.2006. In this backdrop, these proceedings are dropped. Notices are discharged.

7. With this background, as the chargesheet was filed before the Court of criminal jurisdiction on 31.5.2006 an order passed on 1.3.2006 reviewed the suspension without reinstating him for a period of 180 days. This has followed an order passed on 28.8.2006, whereby suspension of applicant was further extended on a review committee meeting held on 28.8.2006 for a further period of 180 days.

8. Learned counsel of applicant in OA-2075/2006 has assailed inaction of respondents reinstating applicant and sought order of suspension dated 12.6.2004 to be declared as illegal, as if not existing.

9. In OA-718/2006 order dated 1.3.2006 has been assailed on the ground that 180 days from 1.3.2006 were over on 27.8.2006 and as the review committee meeting was held on 28.8.2006, i.e., on 181st day the suspension was extended, clearly falls beyond 180 days and while relying upon proviso to Rule 3 (8) (d), it is stated that as no orders had been passed within 180 days, suspension of applicant has been revoked from 1.3.2006 and reliance has been placed on an order passed by the State Government on 16.5.2006 where, in the matter of suspension of one Mr. Thete, the review was done much before 180 days.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that in response to OA-2075/2006 that as in the contempt respondents have been accorded liberty to take effective steps for prosecution of applicant by 31.5.2006 and in such an event the chargesheet has been filed on the same day. As the suspension of applicant was reviewed within time, he has no right to be reinstated in service, as the orders passed in OA merged into the order passed in CP.

11. As regards the contention regarding review of suspension within 180 days, respondents in OA-718/2006 stated that the review of suspension has taken place within 180 days.

12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.

13. Insofar as reinstatement of applicant is concerned, though the order in OA has directed reinstatement but with liberty to hold a review meeting, justifying suspension for any further material and the orders passed in CP when directed respondents to take effective steps by 31.5.2006, failing which applicant would be reinstated, filing of chargesheet in the criminal case has rightly denied applicant reinstatement in service. However, as All India Services Rules are statutory in nature and would have to be applied with all vigor, though there is a stipulation in the matter of a Member of all India Service on account of criminal charge to be continued under suspension till culmination of the criminal charge, yet Rule 8 (a), which is a general rule, is an exception to both suspension on account of disciplinary proceedings and on account of involvement in criminal case lays down a methodology whereby despite pendency of the same a timely review of the suspension has to be done, clearly provides that suspension is valid for a period of 90 days initially, then on timely review of the suspension for a period of 180 days would make it in accordance with law. However, the period of suspension has necessarily to be extended before the expiry of 180 days by an order to be issued on holding a meeting of the review committee before the extended time on review of the suspension. However, in the present case as the order of suspension is dated 1.3.2006, on extension in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal 180 days have to be reckoned from that date and this period expired on 27.8.2006. Admittedly, extension of suspension on review has been done in the present case beyond the period of 180 days, i.e., on 181st day, which is 28.8.2006 renders the continued suspension as illegal and suspension of applicant stands revoked from 1.3.2006. Accordingly, without acceding to the prayer of applicant made in OA-2075/2006, it is dismissed and OA-718/2006 is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 28.8.2006 is set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate applicant in service w.e.f. 1.3.2006. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Respondents are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Let a copy of this order be kept in the file of each case. (N.D. Dayal) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.