South Block, New Delhi-11 v. 2 The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad

Heard the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and the respondent/party-in-person. On the premises that the respondent while functioning as a Director (Contracts), in Engineer-in-Chief (R&D), Secunderabad, has been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the allegation of demand of illegal gratification for performing official duties, the respondent has been detained in prison for more than 48 hours and consequently, the fiction incorporated under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, sprung up. The issue is whether the respondent should be reinstated into service at this stage where the Criminal Court is yet to take up trial, though charge-sheet has already been filed arraying the respondent herein as one of the accused in the crime. Where upon a serious allegation touching upon the integrity of an officer prompts placing him under suspension, larger public interest would demand that such a person cannot be reinstated to duty pending finalization of the Criminal Case.

The department is not responsible for the delay that is occurring in the criminal case in dealing with the case of corruption, for variety of good reasons, including lack of adequate number of judicial officers, such cases are taking longer time than are really required to be decided. In the interregnum, if an officer whose integrity was doubted, is to be reinstated, his propensity to continue with his former habits would be more profound. Therefore, in such circumstances, ordering reinstatement would not sub-serve the larger public interest. When this country as a whole is struggling to check the menace of corruption in public offices, ordering reinstatement of a public servant facing prosecution for a serious crime of indulging in corrupt practices would be contrary to the larger public interest. For any reason, if there is any infirmity or failure to review the order of suspension properly, in such cases, appropriate relief would be to direct the employer to pay the last drawn wages as a whole instead of paying 75% thereof as subsistence allowance.

No employee can insist that he should not be prevented from attending to his duties. So long as his wages are being paid, he cannot be heard to say that he is suffering in any manner. The right of the employer to keep away an employee from the work place cannot be denied. Therefore, we consider that ends of justice would be better served by directing the Union of India to continue to pay, for the present, the last drawn wages of the respondent, which were drawn and paid to him as on the date on which he was placed under suspension, as it is complained bitterly that for the last few years, he has been kept out of office, without a proper review of his prolonged suspension. SD/-T.YAKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Union of India, South Block, New Delhi. 2 B.N. Singh S/o Brahmadeo Singh, R/o 93/1, Mudfort, Secunderabad- 3, Employed as Director (Contracts) in the office ADG (OF & DRDO), Mudfort, Secunderabad-500 003.

(Party-in-Person) 3 The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. (1 & 2 BY RPAD) 4 One CC to Sri M. Brahma Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 5 Two Spare Copies. SRL HIGH COURT NRRJ & ANISJ DT.14.10.2015. ORDER W.P.No. 31704 of 2014 DIRECTION DRAFTED BY: SRL Drafted on: 26.10.2015 HIGH COURT NRRJ & ANISJ DT.14.10.2015. ORDER W.P.No. 31704 of 2014 DIRECTION