Chingtham Nandakumar Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court did not decide the matter on its merits. It noted that the matter was still pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The writ petition was filed before the High Court due to the unavailability of a Division Bench of the Tribunal. Upon being informed that the Division Bench of the Tribunal is now available on Thursdays, the High Court decided not to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with a request to hear and dispose of the case on its merits as early as possible, considering its urgency. No specific finding was given on the legality of the suspension extensions or the non-filing of the charge-sheet.

Facts

The petitioner, Chingtham Nandakumar Singh, an Inspector in the Customs Department, was suspended from service on March 25, 2021, pending a departmental enquiry. As per Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a charge-sheet must be filed within ninety days of suspension, though the suspension can be reviewed and extended before its expiry. The petitioner alleges that no charge-sheet has been filed to date. His suspension was reviewed and extended for 180 days on June 18, 2021, and subsequently extended for another 90 days on September 13, 2021. The petitioner contends that the continuous review of his suspension is illegal and the non-filing of the charge-sheet violates natural justice. He also argues that the first extension order was beyond the permissible ninety-day period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continuous review and extension of the petitioner's suspension order, without filing a charge-sheet within the stipulated period, is bad in law and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the first extension order which allegedly exceeded ninety days? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the repeated extensions of his suspension, without the filing of a charge-sheet within the ninety-day period mandated by Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, constitute a violation of natural justice. He contends that the first extension order was beyond the permissible ninety days, rendering it illegal. The petitioner also asserts that the continuous reviewing of his suspension is bad in law. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and others).