Central Administrative Tribunal - MumbaiDated This Friday vs Union Of India Through on 22 November, 20131O.A. No. 439/2013CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL 
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI.ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.: 439 of 2013 

Dated this Friday, the 22nd day of November, 2013.CORAM : Hon'ble Smt. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J).Hon'ble Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A).Dr. (Mrs.) Kajal Bajpai, 
Sr. Technical Officer, 
55/2/1, 'Somjai Kripa' Ist floor, 
Gali No. 3, Suyog Colony, 
Vinayak Nagar, Pimple Gurav, 
New Sanghvi, 
PUNE - 411 061 ... ... Applicant.(By Advocate Shri P. J. Prasadrao) 


VERSUS1. 
Union of India through 
The Secretary, 
Ministry of Communications & 
Information Technology, 
Government of India & Ex-officio 
Chairman, C-DAC Governing Council 
Electronic Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, 
Lodhi Road, 
New Delhi 110 003.2. 
The Secretary, 
Department of Electronics & Information 
Technology & Vice-Chairman C-DAC 
Governing Council, 
Electronic Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, 
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.3. 
Director General, 
Centre for Development of Advanced 
Computing, Pune University Campus 
Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007.2O.A. No. 439/20134. 
Executive Director, 
Central for Development of Advanced 
Computing, Pune University Campus 
Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007. ... Respondents 
(By Advocate Shri S. P. Saxena for Respondents 1, 3 & 4) 

OR D E R 

Per :Smt. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J).The applicant, presently working as Senior 


Technical Officer, Centre for Development of Advance 


Computing (hereinafter referred to as 'C-DAC'), Pune 


University Campus, Pune, has filed this Original 


Application challenging the order of suspension dated 


14.05.2013. The order of suspension is set out herein 


below :ORDER OF SUSPENSION 


[Reference: Rule 10(1), CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965] 


Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Dr. 
Kajal Bajpai (Emp. ID: 102013), Senior Technical
Officer, Applied A1 Group, C-DAC, Pune is 
contemplated.Now, therefore, the undersigned (the Appointing
Authority), the authority empowered, in exercise of
the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby places the said Dr.
Kajal Bajpai under suspension with immediate 
effect.It is further ordered that during the period that
this order shall remain in force the headquarters
of Dr. Kajal Bajpai, Senior Technical Officer,
Applied A1 Group, C-DAC, Pune shall be Pune and Dr.
Kajal Bajpai shall not leave the headquarters
without obtaining the written permission in advance
of the undersigned.3 O.A. No. 439/20132. The main ground for challenging this order of 
suspension is, inter alia, that the order of suspension 
was issued by an incompetent authority. The applicant 
has further challenged that the order of suspension is 
not valid in law since her presence is not subversive 
of discipline in the office. By writing a joint letter 
to the IIT, Mumbai, the applicant has not committed any 
misconduct. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant 
are : quashing and setting aside of the impugned 
suspension order dated 14.05.2013 and for a direction 
to allow the applicant to join her duties pending 
completion of the disciplinary proceedings as well as 
to pay the full salary and allowances, including 
consequential benefits of increment.3. We have heard Shri P. J. Prasadrao, Learned 
Counsel for applicant and Shri S.P. Saxena, Learned 
Counsel for Respondents No. 1, 3, and 4. The pleadings 
as well as the documents annexed have also been 
perused.4. Shri P.J. Prasadrao, Learned Counsel appearing 
for the applicant submits that C-DAC has adopted the 
CCS (CCA) Rules. That is why in the impugned suspension 
order it is clearly mentioned that the order of 
suspension has been issued in exercise of the powers 
conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central 
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,4 O.A. No. 439/20131965. The impugned suspension order has been issued by 
the Executive Director of the C-DAC, who is not the 
competent authority inasmuch as the Appointing 
Authority of the applicant is the Director General, 
being the Respondent No. 3 herein.5. The applicant has also annexed the bye-laws for 
C-DAC. From the schedule in respect of the appointing 
authorities in C-DAC, it appears that the Appointing 
Authority for the posts of Scientist 'C'/equivalent is 
the Director General. However, it is further mentioned 
in the same column that the Executive Director is the 
Appointing Authority for employees working in the 
Centres.6. The Learned Counsel for the respondents submits 
that the applicant is serving in the Centre and, as 
such, the Executive Director is her Appointing 
Authority, so there is nothing improper in issuing the 
order of suspension by the Executive Director.7. Learned Counsel for applicant, Shri Prasadrao, 
has referred to Annexure A-17, being the appointment 
letter of the applicant. The said appointment letter 
was issued by the Director General. Learned Counsel for 
applicant has also taken us through Annexure A-16, 
being the minutes of the meeting of the Selection 
Committee and submits that the said minutes of the 
meeting was also approved by the Director General. He5 O.A. No. 439/2013submits that the suspension order is liable to be set 
aside on this ground alone.8. The applicant also filed a Miscellaneous 
Application No. 732/2013 for taking certain documents 
on record. In the said Miscellaneous Application, the 
applicant annexed the order of extension of suspension 
dated 08.08.2013, which also refers to Rule 10(7) of 
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and it is mentioned there after 
reviewing, the order of suspension stands extended for 
a period of 90 days. The said order was also issued 
by the Executive Director.9. The applicant in this O.A. challenged the letter 
dated 10.07.2013, which was issued in response to her 
representation dated 08.07.2013 via e.mail. The 
contents of the letter is as follows :Subject : Suspension Order No. 
P:ED:2013:011:AAIG:01/01 dated 14.05.2013.I am in receipt of your email dated 8th July,
2013 regarding withdrawal of suspension order
dated 14.05.2013 issued by Executive Director,
C-DAC, Pune.As I understand, the charge sheet has already
been served in reference to this suspension
order and the Departmental Enquiry is underway.
You may represent your case in the Departmental
Enquiry.At this point of time, I do not see any
appropriateness of my intervening in the 
process.10. The respondents, in their reply, have contended 
that C-DAC is a Society, headed by a Governing Council, 
constituted under the Rules and Regulations of the6 O.A. No. 439/2013Society. The Governing Council is the Apex Body. The 
Corporate Office of C-DAC is also located at Pune, 
which is headed by a Director General. In addition to 
Head/Corporate Office, there are various Centres of CDAC, 
which are located at ten places, including Pune.The Executive Director of the Centre of the Society is 
the Head of the Centre. The applicant serves in such 
Centre at Pune. It is further contended that if 
appointments of Scientist 'B' to Scientist 'F' is made 
in any of the ten Centres, then in such a case, it is 
the Executive Director of the concerned Centre, who is 
the competent authority. The Director General is the 
Appointing Authority for appointment at Corporate/Head 
Office but not in the Centre. The Learned Counsel for 
the respondents submits that the offer of appointment, 
being Annexure A-17 to the O.A., was signed by the 
Director General because the then Director General 
designated was holding additional charge of Director 
General, being Executive Director, C-DAC, Pune Centre.11. The Learned Counsel for the respondents submits 
that charge sheet has been issued to the applicant on 
14.06.2013 and the inquiry has already been commenced 
for the misconduct of writing a joint letter by the 
applicant on 20.03.2013. The suspension of the 
applicant was ordered in contemplation of departmental 
enquiry as per rules. The applicant's suspension was7 O.A. No. 439/2013reviewed by the competent authority, as required under 
the relevant rules and the authority decided to extend 
the suspension for another period of 90 days after 
13.08.2013. The applicant has to wait for the outcome 
of the pending enquiry.12. The Learned Counsel for the applicant has 
relied on the following decisions :(i) O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India & Others[1988 (1) AI SLJ 121](ii) Jitender Singh Vs. Commissioner of 
Police & Anr. [2010 (2) AI SLJ 24](iii) Haobijam Imocha Singh Vs. State of 
Manipur & Anr. [2012 (2) AI SLJ 366](iv) Krishna Kunal Vs. Union of India & 
Others [O.A. 345/2012] andHinglajdan Vs. 
Union of India & Others[O.A. No. 376/2012] 
decided by common order dated 02.04.2013 by the 
Co-ordinate Bench of Central Administrative 
Tribunal at Jaipur.13. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has 
relied on the following decisions :(i) Government of Tamil Nadu & Others Vs. S. 
Vel Raj[1997 (2) AI SLJ 32](ii) Inspector General of Police & Another Vs. 
Thavasiappan[1996 (2) SCC 146](iii) Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 Vs. A.8 O.A. No. 439/2013Radha Krishna Moorthy[1995 (1) SCC 332]14. It appears from the impugned order of suspension 
that the same has been issued in terms of Rule 10 of 
CCS (CCA) Rules. The relevant part of Rule 10 is set 
out herein below :10. Suspension :(1) The Appointing Authority or any authorityto which it is subordinate or the disciplinaryauthority or any other authority empowered inthat behalf by the President by general or 
special order, may place a Government servant 
under suspension (a) Where a disciplinary proceedingagainst him is contemplated or is pending; or 
(aa) where, in the opinion of theauthority aforesaid, he has engaged himself inactivities prejudicial to the interest of thesecurity of the State; or(b) where a case against him in 
respect of any criminal offence is under 
investigation, inquiry or trial15. From the appointment letter it is evident that 
the appointment letter of the applicant was issued by 
the Director General. Therefore, there cannot be any 
dispute that the Director General will be the 
disciplinary authority at least in respect of the 
applicant. Nowhere from the pleadings or the documents 
it is revealed that any other authority has been 
empowered by the President by any order to place a Sr. 
Technical Officer working in C-DAC under suspension in 
terms of relevant rule of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. We9 O.A. No. 439/2013have also gone through the bye-laws of the C-DAC. Bye-
law 17.1 clearly mentions that Appointing Authority shall be 
vested with the powers of Disciplinary Authority.16. 
The applicant has annexed the statements of 
articles of charge. The said statement of articles of 
charge also says that the applicant is governed by the 
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. There are fifteen (15) 
articles in the Statement of Articles of Charge. The 
misconduct alleged against the applicant is that the 
applicant has written a letter dated 20.03.2013 jointly 
with two other employees of C-DAC, namely  Dr. Sudhir 
Kumar Mishra and Dr. Rudranarayan Mohapatra, concerning 
another employee of C-DAC, namely  Mrs. Shraddha 
Kalele and alleged that an illegal and/or forged 
certificate was produced by Mrs. Shraddha Kalele at the 
time of appointment. The applicant made wild 
allegations without any subsistence, based on 
hypothesis and conjectures, raised question on the 
integrity of Prof. Pushpak Bhattacharya of I.I.T., 
Mumbai, have cast aspersion on the integrity of Ms. 
Shraddha Kalele, had questioned the reputation 
regarding honesty and integrity of Ms. Shraddha Kalele 
for reasons other than professional. All the articles 
of charge and statement of imputation alleging various 
misconduct emanates from writing the joint letter by 
the applicant addressed to the Director, IIT, Mumbai10 O.A. No. 439/2013and the Minister of H.R.D. without forwarding through 
proper channel.17. The Learned Counsel for respondents has handed 
over the minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee 
dated 08.08.2013. The Review Committee observed that 
revocation of suspension order was likely to prejudice 
and influence the pending inquiry for the following 
reasons :(a) Possibility of tampering with the 
evidences, documents and witnesses.(b) Subversion of office discipline.(c) Tampering of data and its misuse.(d) Misuse of official machinery and property.18. It is well settled that the power of suspension 
ought to be exercised where it is necessary to prevent 
the charged officer from repeating the misconduct or 
tampering with material evidence or interfering with 
preliminary investigation. Suspension is also 
considered necessary to restore public faith in 
Government working by exhibiting authority's 
determination to firmly deal with cases of corruption 
and grave misconduct. The judicial intervention is 
limited to testing whether the administrative action 
has been fair and free from the taint of 
unreasonableness and has substantially complied with 
the norms of procedure set for it by rules. However,11 O.A. No. 439/2013in the ultimate analysis, judicial review depends on 
the facts and circumstances of each case.19. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case ofState of 
Orissa Vs. Vimal Kumar Mohanty[AIR 1994 SC2296] held that the 
order of suspension would be passed after taking into 
consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be 
inquired into or investigated and the nature of the 
evidence placed before the Appointing Authority and on 
application of the mind by the Disciplinary Authority. 
However, each case must be considered depending on the 
nature of the allegation, gravity of the situation and 
the indelible impact it creates on the service for the 
continuance of the delinquent employee in service 
pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry.20. The judgments relied on by the respondents are 
mostly dealing with the interference at the charge 
sheet stage or competence of the authority issuing the 
charge sheet.21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofO.P. 
Gupta Vs. Union of India & Others[1988 (1) AI SLJ 121] held that an 
order of suspension of a Government servant does not 
put an end to his service. He continues to be a member 
but there is no doubt that an order of suspension, 
unless departmental enquiry is concluded within a 
reasonable time, affects a Government servant 
injuriously. During suspension the Government employee12 O.A. No. 439/2013has to survive on subsistence allowance. The dictionary 
meaning of the word 'subsist' as given in Shorter 
Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.II at p. 2171 is 'to 
remain alive as on food; to continue to exist."Subsistence" implies -means of supporting life, 
especially a minimum livelihood.In the case ofBoard of 
Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & 
Others[1983] 1 SCR 828 the Court held that the expression 

'life' does not merely connote animal existence or a 
continued drudgery through life. The expression 'life' 
has a much wider meaning. Therefore, although 
suspension is not one of the punishments specified in 
rule 11 of the rules, an order of suspension is not to 
be lightly passed against the government servant.22. Now in the instant case, we find force in the 
submission of the learned counsel for the applicant 
that since the appointment letter dated 14.09.2007 was 
issued to the applicant by the Director General, 
therefore the Appointing Authority of the applicant is 
the Director General. Further, in the letter for 
continuation of the contract service of the applicant 
with C-DAC at Pune Centre issued by the Executive 
Director, reference has been given to the said 
appointment letter dated 14.09.2007. In terms of Rule 
10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the impugned order of suspension 
in respect of the applicant has not been issued by the13 O.A. No. 439/2013Appointing Authority. As such, the Executive Director, 
in the instant case, is not competent to pass the order 
of suspension. Paragraph 17.1 of the Bye-law clearly 
says that the Appointing Authority shall be vested with 
the powers of Disciplinary Authority.23. The applicant has filed a representation to 
review the extension of the suspension order, which has 
also not been properly attended by the Review 
Committee. We have gone through the minutes of the 
meeting of the Review Committee. The Review Committee 
only routinely mentioned that there was possibility of 
tampering with the evidence, documents and witnesses; 
subversion of office discipline; tampering of data and 
its misuse; and misuse of official machinery and 
property. From the nature of the misconduct alleged 
against the applicant, it seems that there is hardly 
any likelihood of arising of such situation in the 
instant case.24. In her appeal addressed to the Director General, 
dated 08.07.2013, the applicant has mentioned that 
there was no bad intention or ill motive to disrepute 
the image of IIT, Mumbai and C-DAC. The applicant has 
not committed any misconduct. The whole object was 
protection of pay at par with Ms. Shraddha Kalele with 
effect from the date of joining of the applicant in CDAC. 
The grievance was that Ms. Shraddha Kalele was14 O.A. No. 439/2013drawing more pay than the applicant despite being a 
junior candidate in the merit list and less 
qualified than the applicant. From the 
representation of the applicant it appears that the 
applicant's contention is that the applicant asked 
for some information to get credible and authentic 
information with regard to experience certificate 
of one Ms. Shraddha Kalele inasmuch as the 
applicant being higher in merit and experience was 
getting lesser pay. The applicant has further 
contended that in the letter No. Corp-RTI/201213/
191 dated 04.02.2013 directions were given to 
approach appropriate authority who held the 
information. Therefore, with reasonable belief and 
good faith a joint letter was written and the 
information provided. Be that as it may, the 
above contentions of the applicant raised in the 
appeal touches the merit of the pending 
disciplinary proceedings.25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out 
that having regard to the serious repercussion on 
livelihood, it has been emphasized that an order of 
interim suspension can only be made after the 
authority comes to the conclusion that there are15 O.A. No. 439/2013sufficient reasons for keeping him under 
suspension. In other words, there has to be a 
proper application of mind and satisfaction that 
suspension is called for in a given case. After 
pointing out that suspension is a unqualified right 
of the employer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 


observed in Capt.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited[AIR 
1999 SC 1416] that the right cannot be exercised for 
trivial lapse nor should the authorities concerned 
be afflicted by 'suspension syndrome' and place 
employees under suspension. It is not understood 
how an organization like C-DAC can afford not to 
utilize the services of the three Scientists.26. Having regard to the above mentioned facts 
and law, in our view, the impugned order of 
suspension cannot be sustained. The impugned 
orders are hereby quashed and set aside. It would 
be open to the respondents to continue with and 
complete the disciplinary proceedings within a 
short time, preferably within six months from the 
date of receipt of a copy of this order.27. The O.A. stands allowed. The respondents 
are directed to allow the applicant to join duties 
forthwith pending completion of disciplinary16 O.A. No. 439/2013proceedings. The period of suspension shall be 
regulated as per the applicable rules at 
appropriate time. M.A. No. 732/2013 also stands 
disposed of. No order as to costs.(Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi) (Smt. Chameli Majumdar) 
Member (A) Member (J) 
os*