K. Senthil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar, Government Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.19974 of 2012 (4) dt.08-11-201 The petitioner is an IAS officer of 1996 batch. He was allocated Bihar Cadre. He served as Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation from 23.2.2009 to February, 2010. On 23.2.2010, he was relieved from the said and other additional charge for joining on Central Deputation, Government of India. He was posted as the Director, Census Operation, Bihar, Patna under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. A Vigilance case being Vigilance case no. 54 of 2010 dated 21.7.2010 was instituted under different provisions of the IPC and PC Act for alleged act of omissions and commissions relating to financial irregularities. The Government of Bihar in the General Administrative Department suspended the petitioner on ground of continuance of criminal prosecution in terms of Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The suspension order dated 30.6.2011 was extended on 13.10.2011 and on other dates from time to time by the Government. Rule 3(3) and Rule 3(8) of the Rules, 1969 is quoted herein below for easy reference:- “Rule 3(3). A member of the Service in respect of, or against, whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charges is pending may, at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a (member of the service) or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude.” Patna High Court CWJC No.19974 of 2012 (4) dt.08-11-201 “Rule 3(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 Committee 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 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 3(8)(a) permits extension of suspension if such extension is ordered within 90 days of the first order of suspension. The Government cannot legally extend the period of suspension if it has not done so within 90 days of the first order of suspension, which would be now deemed to have lapsed. He submits that first order of extension of suspension was admittedly passed on

13.10.2011 which was beyond 90 days of passing of order of suspension on 30.6.2011. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already remained in suspension for one and a half Patna High Court CWJC No.19974 of 2012 (4) dt.08-11-201 years and on this score also, his suspension is liable to be revoked. Counsel for the State first submits that already disciplinary proceeding has already started. He states that the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is quoted herein below:- (i) (ii) 3(q). “Service matters”, in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government, as respects- remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; disciplinary matters; or (iv) Any other matter whatsoever; This Court ordinarily would be reluctant to entertain the writ petition against order of suspension of an officer of Indian Civil Service, IAS Cadre, save and except for exceptional circumstances as there is an alternative remedy by filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is expected that the learned Tribunal would consider the challenge Patna High Court CWJC No.19974 of 2012 (4) dt.08-11-201 to suspension within a week of filing of the application by the petitioner. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, the writ petition is disposed of. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of contention of either parties. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)