Disposed

Sapan Kumar Ram v. Indira Gandhi National Open University

Delhi HC23 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2824/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the petition claiming unsustainable suspension, permitting the petitioner to approach the respondent with an application for relief. The respondent is directed to pass a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit application/representation; respondent directed to pass speaking order within six weeks and reply within one week.

Sapan Kumar Ram Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: March 23, 2018

¶3

¶4

W.P.(C) 2824/2018

¶5

SAPAN KUMAR RAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prateek Tushar Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

¶8

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. Saurabh Chauhan and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocates

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶10

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶11

Vide order of 26^th April, 2016 (Annexure P-1) petitioner, who was working as Assistant Registrar, Regional Centre Kolkata, was placed under suspension on account of registration of criminal case against him. Petitioner’s suspension was extended by three months vide order of 26^th July, 2016 (Annexure P-2) . Again, vide order of 26^th October, 2016 (Annexure P-3), petitioner’s suspension was further extended by three months, followed by further extension of suspension vide order of 25^th April, 2017 (Annexure P-4) . However, vide order of 24^th August, 2017 (Annexure P-5), petitioner’s suspension was revoked while exercising powers conferred by Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

W.P.(C) 2824/2018

¶14

(Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965].

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that although departmental inquiry is pending against petitioner, but in terms of Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the guiding principles in Swamy’s Manual on Disciplinary Proceedings for placing Government servant under suspension, the period of suspension cannot be extended beyond the period of 90 days. Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioner’s counsel to Fundamental Rule 54-B to submit that upon revocation of suspension, it needs to be clarified as to how the period of suspension has to be treated, which has not been done.

¶16

Quashing of suspension order (Annexure P-1) and a declaration to the effect that petitioner is deemed to be on duty after a period of 90 days of suspension, i.e. with effect from 26^th July, 2016, is sought in this petition.

¶17

To say the least, petitioner has to first approach respondent for the relief claim in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner candidly submits that no Representation or application has been filed before respondent seeking relief as sought in this petition.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of while permitting petitioner to submit application/Representation to seek the relief as sought in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the application/Representation would be submitted to respondent within a week. If it is so done, then respondent shall pass a speaking order thereon in light of the applicable rules and regulations within a

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

W.P.(C) 2824/2018

¶21

period of six weeks and shall convey the fate of the application/Representation to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for petitioner.

¶23

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

MARCH 23, 2018

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 2824/2018

Sapan Kumar Ram v. Indira Gandhi National Open University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapan Kumar Ram v. Indira Gandhi National Open University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Gosain Vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Mr. Kshitiz Kumar Vs the Lt. Governor of Gnct and Ors.

Mohit Electronics Vs the Workman Tahir Hussain

Shantilal Singhee Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sanjay Bansal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manoj Bansal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sunil Kumar Jain Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kailash Ram Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravinder Gosain Vs Punjab & Sind Bank

Vikram Singh Vs the Union of India and Anr.

G S Sodhi Vs NTPC Ltd. & Anr.

Yoshi & Ors. Vs Esic & Ors.

P K Singh Vs National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.