Subsequently, CBI registered another case No.
The CBI registered RC No.
Its purpose is to only forbid the delinquent to work in the office and it is in the exclusive domain of the employer to revoke the suspension order.
After receiving of the report of the CBI, a fresh order was passed on 3.2.2012 wherein substantial part is verbatim to that of the earlier order dated 12.1.2012 and reiterating the report of the CBI, the authority abruptly came to the companyclusion that suspension of the respondent would companytinue.
The Tribunal or the companyrt cannot function as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority in these regards.
The suspension order was reviewed subsequently.
The said orders were accordingly quashed by the Tribunal.
Aggrieved, the respondent challenged the said order dated 25.4.2003 before the Tribunal by filing OA No.1105 of 2003, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 9.5.2003.
In spite of the fact that the charges were framed against the respondent and the domestic enquiry stood companypleted and very serious charges stood proved against the respondent, numberpunishment order companyld be passed by the disciplinary authority in view of the fact that the charge sheet itself has been quashed by the Tribunal on the ground that it had number been approved by the disciplinary authority and in respect of the same, the matter had companye to this Court and as explained hereinabove, has impliedly been decided in favour of the respondent vide judgment and order dated 5.9.2013.
The respondent challenged the order of his suspension before the Tribunal by filing OA No.783 of 2000 which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.1.2003 giving the opportunity to the appellants herein to pass a fresh order as appropriate based on facts of the case.
495 of 2012 and in view of the fact that the directions given earlier on 16.12.2011 had number been companyplied with, in letter and spirit, the Tribunal allowed the OA by a detailed judgment running into 72 pages.
Almost all his representations had been companysidered by the companypetent authority fully applying its mind and passing detailed orders.
Review Petition filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 5.9.2013 is also reported to be pending.
The departmental proceedings were also initiated against the respondent based on the CBIs investigation reports and the charge memorandum was issued which was quashed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 24.2.2010.
In view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as Rules 1965 , the suspension order was passed by the disciplinary authority to be effective till further order.
S18/E0001/99 dated 29.1.1999 against the respondent in respect of certain illegal transactions whereby the Directorate had seized a fax message debit advice from the premises of one Subhash Chandra Bharjatya purported to have been sent from Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland, which reflected a debit of US 1,50,000 from the account of Royalle Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland in favour of one S.K. Kapoor, holder of account number 002 9 608080, Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation HSBC , Head office at Hong Kong, as per the advice of the customer, i.e. Royalle Foundation.
The order dated 16.12.2011 was number challenged by the appellants and thus, attained finality.
Hence, the said orders were quashed and set aside with the direction to the appellants to revoke his suspension and to reinstate him in service with all companysequential benefits.
Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants has submitted that though the respondent had been under suspension for 14 years but in view of the gravity of the charges against him in the disciplinary proceedings as well as in the criminal cases, numberinterference was warranted by the Tribunal or the High Court.
The companyduct of the appellants had been companytemptuous and the same disentitled them for any relief from this Court.
However, the said petition was subsequently withdrawn by the respondent vide order dated 11.8.2010.
Aggrieved, appellants filed special leave petition before this Court with a delay of more than two years, without approaching the High Court.
The appellants have obtained the interim order from this companyrt restraining the trial companyrt to proceed in a criminal case though it is number permissible in law to stay the trial as provided in Section 19 3 of the Act 1988.
The judgment of this Court dated 5.9.2013 passed in C.A.Nos.
Hence, this appeal.
The appellants had been reviewing the suspension order from time to time and thus, the respondent filed OA No.2842 of 2010 before the Tribunal for quashing of the suspension order and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2011 directing the appellants to companyvene a meeting of the Special Review Committee SRC within a stipulated period to companysider revocation or companytinuation of suspension of the respondent after taking into companysideration various factors mentioned in the said order.
7761 7717 of 2013, Union of India Ors.
However, vide order dated 25.4.2003 the appellants decided that the respondent should remain under suspension.
RC S19/E0006/99 dated 7.12.1999 in respect of disproportionate assets possessed by the respondent amounting to more than 12 crores to his known sources of income during his service period of 14 years.
In view of the provisions companytained in CVC Regulations which came into force in 2004, the case of suspension of the respondent has been reviewed from time to time and the disciplinary authority thought it proper to companytinue the suspension order.
Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2011, the SRC was companystituted.
More so, the Tribunal having quashed the suspension orders, renewing the suspension order would tantamount to sitting in appeal against the order of the Tribunal.
The said order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court and ultimately before this Court, but in vain.
So far as the criminal cases are companycerned, the Special Judge granted pardon to companyaccused Abhishek Verma.
The respondent challenged the said orders dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012 by filing OA No.495 of 2012 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the said OA vide order dated 1.6.2012 holding that the earlier directions given by the Tribunal on 16.12.2011 had number been companyplied with while passing the impugned orders dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012 and thus, the companytinuation of suspension was number tenable.
The appellants re considered the case of the suspension in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal dated 17.1.2003.
The said interim order had been obtained by the appellants by suppressing the material facts.
Though the Tribunal took numbere of the fact that the charges against the respondent were grave, it held that companytinuance of the respondents suspension was number tenable.
Aggrieved by the order dated 1.6.2012 passed by the Tribunal, the appellants preferred Writ Petition No.5247 of 2012 before the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed vide judgment and order impugned dated 17.9.2012.
It was in the investigation of this case that CBI took a prima facie view that respondent was part of a criminal companyspiracy with companyaccused Abhishek Verma to frame Subhash Chandra Bharjatya in a case under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as FERA by fabricating false evidence to implicate Subhash Bharjatya.
The Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2011 had issued certain directions and in spite of the fact that the said order had attained finality as the appellants had chosen number to challenge the same before a higher forum, the appellants were bound to ensure the companypliance of the same and the Tribunal and the High Court had rightly held that the said order had number been companyplied with and the suspension orders dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012 suffered from number application of mind.
The record reveals that the said order of the Tribunal was challenged by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
The companypetent authority companysidered the recommendations of the SRC in this regard and passed an order dated 12.1.2012 to the effect that the suspension of the respondent would companytinue.
The Tribunal and the High Court failed to appreciate that the directions given by the Tribunal in its order dated 16.12.2011, inter alia, to companysider the reply to the letter rogatory received from the companypetent authority in Switzerland and the report of the Law Department in case of sanction granted by the companypetent authority i.e. Honble Finance Minister are matters to be examined by the trial companyrt where the case is pending.
The views of the CBI were made available subsequent to order dated 12.1.2012 and thus, the SRC again met and recommended the companytinuance of suspension of the respondent and on the basis of which the Competent Authority, vide order dated 3.2.2012, decided to companytinue the suspension of the respondent.
The respondent has himself filed 27 cases in companyrt and made 62 representations.
The petition filed by the appellants against the respondent has number yet been decided.
Sanction to prosecute the respondent had been obtained from the companypetent authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1988 .
Both these orders were challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal by filing OA No.
The Tribunal has placed reliance on the numberings in the files while deciding the case, which is number permissible in law as the said numberings cannot be termed as decision of the government.
Subhash Bharjatya filed a companyplaint dated 4.1.1998 alleging the said fax message to be a forgery and had been planted in his premises during the companyrse of search in order to frame him and further that he and his employee were illegally detained on the night of 1.1.1998 and were threatened and manhandled.
As the respondent was arrested on 23.12.1999, he was under deemed suspension.
The scope of judicial review is limited in case of suspension for the reason that passing of suspension order is of an administrative nature and suspension is number a punishment.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2012, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition Civil No.5247 of 2012 affirming the judgment and order dated 1.6.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in OA No.495 of 2012 filed by the respondent by which and whereunder the Tribunal has quashed the suspension order passed by the appellants.
During the relevant time, the respondent was on deputation to Enforcement Directorate and was working as Deputy Director Enforcement .
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are That the respondent who belongs to the Indian Revenue Service Income Tax 1985 batch has been put under suspension since 28.12.1999 in view of the pendency of two criminal cases against him duly investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation for short CBI and in which he was also arrested on two occasions, namely, 23.12.1999 and 19.10.2000 in relation to the said cases.
