Kangjam Homen Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Held

The Court noted that the matter was still pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The petitioner had approached the High Court via a writ petition due to the unavailability of the CAT's Division Bench. The Court was informed that the Division Bench of the CAT is now available on Thursdays. In light of this, the Court expressed no inclination to hear the matter on its merits at that stage. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The learned Member of the Tribunal was requested to hear the matter on its merits and dispose of it as early as possible, considering the urgency of the case. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Kangjam Homen Singh, an Inspector in the Custom Department, was suspended from service on March 18, 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. The petitioner alleges that no charge-sheet was filed within the initial ninety days. His suspension was extended on June 28, 2021, for 180 days, and further extended on September 13, 2021, for another ninety days. The petitioner contends that these continuous extensions are unlawful and that the non-filing of the charge-sheet violates natural justice. He also argues that the first extension was beyond the permissible ninety-day period. The matter was initially before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), but this writ petition was filed due to the unavailability of the CAT's Division Bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continuous review and extension of the petitioner's suspension order, without filing a charge-sheet within the stipulated ninety days, is bad in law and violative of the principles of natural justice, as per Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965? 2. Whether the first extension of the suspension order, granted beyond the initial ninety-day period, is permissible under the law? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the continuous extension of his suspension order is unlawful. He contended that the failure to file a charge-sheet within ninety days of his suspension violates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, he argued that the first extension of his suspension was granted beyond the ninety-day period, which is not permissible under the law. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and others).