Allowed

The Union of India, v. B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh

Telangana HC24 Mar 2014WP/16651/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court addressed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order which set aside a government suspension order for non-compliance with the 90-day review rule. The court left the jurisdictional and time-bar issues open, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after additional pleadings on jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside and the writ petition was allowed with the matter remanded to the Tribunal to dispose of the application afresh.

The Union of India, Vs B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.16651 OF 2013

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 25.3.2013, in O.A.No.1370 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and set aside the same.

¶6

2. While respondent No.1 herein/applicant was working as Director (Contracts) in CE (R&D), Secunderabad, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) laid trap and caught red-handedly its Additional Director – P.Narayana Raju while accepting the bribe money and in that connection, the applicant was also arrested along with the Additional Director on 23.2.2010. He was produced before the Court on 24.2.2010 and later, remanded to judicial custody. He was granted bail on 3.3.2010. Initially, he was placed under suspension under Rule 10(2) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, “the Rules”) with effect from 23.2.2010 vide order, dated 9.4.2010 (Annex.A-I). Subsequently, the competent authority reviewed the order of suspension of the applicant and extended the same for a further period of 180 days beyond 24.5.2010 stating that the applicant shall remain under suspension upto 20.11.2010. The review order, dated 24.5.2010, (Annex.A-II) took place within 90 days from the date of initial order of suspension. Subsequently, the competent authority reviewed the suspension of the applicant and extended further for a period of 180 days beyond 20.11.2010 vide order, dated 19.11.2010 (Annex.A-III). Later, on

¶7

further review, the competent authority extended the period of suspension for a period of 180 days beyond 19.5.2011 i.e., 15.11.2011 and subsequent reviews have been taken place and extended from time to time for a further period of 180 days. Thus, the applicant is under suspension in view of extension of suspension from time to time on review by the competent authority. In respect of the investigation conducted by the C.B.I., they have completed the investigation and also filed charge sheet against the applicant on 20.4.2011 and the case is pending before the Special Court for C.B.I. Cases at Hyderabad. The main contention of the applicant is that the competent authority has not reviewed his order of suspension within the stipulated time and as such, the extension of further period of 180 days vide orders dated, 24.5.2010 and 19.11.2010, are bad and illegal. Hence, he filed the above Original Application before the Tribunal.

¶8

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Application setting aside the order, dated 24.5.2010, (Annex.A-II), solely on the ground that the suspension order has not been reviewed within 90 days of initial suspension. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the Government.

¶9

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent contended that 90 days has to be calculated in terms of proviso to Rule 10 (7) of the Rules and if it is calculated in terms of that Rule, the review of the suspension order was passed well within the period of 90 days; that as respondent No.1/applicant was ordered to be released on bail on 3.3.2010, that date has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting the 90 days and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶10

5. On the other hand, respondent No.1/party-in-person contended for the first time before this Court the authority, which reviewed the suspension order, has no power to extend the review beyond 90 days;

¶11

that the President is the appointing authority and the President alone is competent to extend the period of suspension or under Article 77 (3) of the Constitution of India, 1949, the President can delegate his powers to anyone of the officers to exercise his powers and therefore, the order, dated 24.5.2010, lacks jurisdiction and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶12

6. The issue with regard to the jurisdiction has been raised by the applicant for the first time before this Court. It has not been raised by the applicant before the Tribunal. It is a fact that when the question of jurisdiction is raised though for the first time, it has a bearing on the suspension order. When an order is passed by an authority, which lacks jurisdiction, it can be said to be an order non est in the eye of law. Therefore, this aspect of the case has to be decided by the Tribunal basing upon the additional pleadings that may be filed by both the parties in the Tribunal. Prima facie, we are satisfied that it is a case, which relates to jurisdictional issue relating to review orders of suspension. That has to be dealt with basing on the pleadings that may be filed by the parties. Further, the issue as to whether the suspension order was reviewed within 90 days from the date of passing the suspension order or not is also left open to be decided by the Tribunal, in accordance with law, basing on the contentions raised by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a request to dispose of the Original Application afresh after allowing the parties to file additional pleadings with regard to the question of jurisdiction. The parties are directed to file additional pleadings before the Tribunal within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the Original Application within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of additional pleadings.

¶13

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded. There

¶14

shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶15

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 24.03.2014 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.16651 OF 2013

¶17

DATE: 24.03.2014

¶18

AMD

The Union of India, v. B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India, v. B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh

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

T. Narasimha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jeedi Dasthagiraiah , Medari Dastagiraiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

G. Soundarya, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. P. Varalaxmi

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal Vs L. Tirupathi

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. K.Rama Devi