Union Of INDIA vs. Ashiquzzaman

Held

The High Court held that the continued suspension of the opposite parties was no longer useful. The Court found that the reasons cited for the continued suspension were not sufficiently relevant or significant. It noted that the opposite parties had been transferred from their original places of posting, and there was no specific material to suggest they could influence investigations or tamper with evidence. The Court also observed that other officers involved in similar cases were on bail or had their suspension revoked. Specifically for Sandeep Yadav (Opposite Party at B), the Court found his situation to be on a better footing than others, and his continued suspension was deemed discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court modified the CAT's order, directing that the opposite parties not be treated as under suspension from the dates of the challenged extension orders, but rather from the expiry of the initial 90-day period of suspension. The petitioners were directed to decide on the treatment of the period of suspension and entitlements in accordance with the rules.

Facts

These writ petitions were filed by the Union of India challenging a common order dated January 31, 2020, passed by the Central Administration Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench. The CAT had allowed Original Applications filed by Ashiquzzaman (Opposite Party in WP(C) No. 12859 of 2020) and Sandeep Yadav @ Yadav Sandeep G.M (Opposite Party in WP(C) No. 12861 of 2020). Ashiquzzaman, a Deputy Commissioner, CGST, was under suspension in connection with an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into the alleged overvaluation of imported rough diamonds worth Rs. 156 crores, with a detected overvaluation of Rs. 150 crores. Sandeep Yadav, also a Deputy Commissioner, was under suspension due to a criminal case registered by the CBI for alleged criminal conspiracy and receipt of illegal gratification. Both officers challenged the extension orders of their suspension.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continued suspension of the opposite parties, Ashiquzzaman and Sandeep Yadav, was justified and in accordance with law, considering the facts and circumstances of their respective cases and the relevant provisions governing suspension. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners, Union of India, contended that the orders extending the suspension of the opposite parties were well within the four corners of the law. They relied on the recommendations of the Suspension Review Committee and the ongoing investigations and legal proceedings. Opposite Party's Arguments: The opposite parties argued that their continued suspension was unjustified. They highlighted that the investigations were nearing completion or had been completed, and that other similarly placed individuals had not had their suspension extended or had been allowed to continue in service. They also pointed to the fact that the extended periods of suspension had expired, and that the CAT had taken note of decisions from the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India.