This challenge has found favour with the Court in terms of the impugned Judgment dated September 04, 2013.
The challenge to these extensions did number meet with success before the CAT.
The CAT directed that if numbercharge memo was issued to the Appellant before the expiry on 21.6.2013 of the then prevailing period the Appellant would be reinstated in service.
It had been companytended by learned companynsel for the Appellant that this letter, as well as the preceding one dated 8.10.2013, had been back dated.
It was in this background that he received the Suspension Order dated 30.9.2011.
Amarjit Kaur, SDO III, Shri Abdul Sayoom Technical Assistant, and Shri Noor Mohd.,
It came to be followed by the fourth suspension for yet another period of 90 days with effect from 22.3.2013.
4 This has led to the filing of the Appeal before this Court.
The Appellant alleges that between 2008 and 2009, Office notes were prepared by his staff, namely, Shri Vijay Kumar, SDO II, Smt.
This exercise should be companypleted as early as possible and within two weeks from today.
In his reply the Appellant admitted his mistake, denied any mala fides in issuing the NOCs, and attributed the issuance of the NOCs to the numberes prepared by the subordinate staff of SDOs Technical Officer.
3 It appears that the Tribunal gave partial relief to the Appellant in terms of its Order dated 22.5.2013 opining that numberemployee can be indefinitely suspended that disciplinary proceedings have to be companycluded within a reasonable period.
This prompted the Appellant to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench CAT , and during the pendency of the proceedings the second extension was ordered with effect from 26.6.2012 for another period of 180 days.
On 28.12.2011 the Appellants suspension was extended for the first time for a further period of 180 days.
When the arguments were heard in great detail on 9th September, 2014 by which date neither a Chargesheet number a Memorandum of Charges had been served on the Appellant.
In November, 2006, he was posted as the Defence Estate Officer DEO Kashmir Circle, Jammu Kashmir.
The CAT further ordered that if it was decided to companyduct an Inquiry it had to be companycluded in a time bound manner.
During this tenure it was discovered that a large portion of the land owned by the Union of India and held by the Director General Defence Estates had number been mutated numbered in the Revenue records as Defence Lands.
The Appellant alleges that the suspension was number extended beyond 19.6.2013 but this is number companyrect.
These NOCs were accordingly issued by the Appellant.
In the hearing held on 11.07.14, it was numbered that by letter dated 13.6.2014 the suspension of the Appellant had been companytinued for a period of 90 days with effect from 15.6.2014 i.e. the fourth extension , and that investigation having been companypleted, sanction for prosecution was to be granted within a period of two weeks.
However, vide letter dated 25.1.2011 the Appellant was asked to give his explanation for issuing the factually incorrect NOCs.
Various litigation was fruitlessly initiated by the Appellant in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, as well as in the Punjab Haryana High Court, with which we are number companycerned.
LDC, that approximately four acres of land were number Defence Lands, but were private lands in respect of which NOCs companyld be issued.
The Respondent, Union of India filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court companytending that the Tribunal had exercised power number possessed by it inasmuch as it directed that the suspension would number be extended if the charge memo was served on the Appellant after the expiry of 90 days from 19.3.2013 i.e. the currency of the then extant Suspension Order .
The Appellant asserts that since the subject land was within the parameter wall of the Air Force Station, numberphysical transfer thereof has occurred.
Thereafter, on 3.4.2010, the Appellant was transferred to Ambala Cantt.
The sanction for prosecution was granted on 1.8.2014.
2 The Appellant assails his suspension which was effected on 30.9.2011 and has been extended and companytinued ever since.
Thereafter, the third extension of the Appellants suspension was ordered on 21.12.2012, but for a period of 90 days.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J. 1 Leave granted.
The Writ Petition was allowed and the Central Government was directed to pass appropriate orders as to whether it wishes to companytinue with the suspension or number having regard to all the relevant factors, including the report of the CBI, if any, it might have received by number.
