Union Of INDIA vs. Dr. Chandravanshi Yaduvanshi Manikanhaiya

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and Chairperson of CBIC, challenged an order dated 14.06.2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, in OA No. 507 of 2021. The respondent, Dr. Chandravanshi Yaduvanshi, a Deputy Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, was placed under suspension on 25.10.2018 due to serious allegations. His suspension was reviewed and continued periodically. Aggrieved by the prolonged suspension, he approached the CAT. The suspension orders were eventually revoked on 29.12.2022, effective from 02.01.2023. Despite the revocation, the CAT adjudicated the matter on merits, holding the suspension beyond 90 days to be bad in law, setting aside the suspension order, and directing payment of salary excluding subsistence allowance already received for the period from 23.01.2019 to 01.01.2023.

Held

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the OA in favour of the respondent on the ground of discrimination. The Court observed that the respondent was similarly situated as Sri Ashiquzzaman, in whose case the petitioners had implemented the orders of the Tribunal and subsequent judicial pronouncements. The principle that the State cannot treat similarly situated persons differently was applied. Therefore, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and directed that the benefits extended to Sri Ashiquzzaman should also be extended to the respondent. The Court did not explicitly address the procedural aspect of the Tribunal adjudicating on merits after revocation, but focused on the substantive issue of discrimination.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in adjudicating the matter on merits and setting aside the suspension order when the suspension had already been revoked prior to the adjudication, and if so, what is the legal consequence of continuing suspension beyond the initial period of 90 days as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Ajai Kumar Choudhry v. Union of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the CAT should have closed the case as the suspension orders were revoked before adjudication. They argued that the Reviewing Committee, as per Rule 10(c) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, had found reasons to continue the respondent's suspension, which the Tribunal failed to appreciate. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ajai Kumar Choudhry v. Union of India to justify the continuation of suspension based on recorded reasons. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the CAT was justified in allowing the OA. He pointed to the case of Sri Ashiquzzaman, another Deputy Commissioner similarly placed, whose prolonged suspension was also challenged before the CAT, Cuttack Bench. The Cuttack Bench allowed his OA, and this order was upheld by the Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court. The petitioners implemented the orders in Sri Ashiquzzaman's case, treating part of his suspension period as 'spent on duty'. The respondent contended that he was identically placed and the Tribunal rightly allowed his OA on the ground of discrimination, as the State cannot treat similarly situated persons differently.