Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J).
1. The applicant, presently working as Senior Technical Officer, Centre for Development of Advance Computing (hereinafter referred to as 'C-DAC'), Pune University Campus, Pune, has filed this Original Application challenging the order of suspension dated 14.05.2013. The order of suspension is set out herein below :
âORDER OF SUSPENSION
[Reference: Rule 10(1), CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965]
Whereas a disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra (Emp. ID: 102018), Senior Technical Officer, Applied A1 Group, C-DAC, Pune is contemplated.
Now, therefore, the undersigned (the Appointing Authority), the authority empowered, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby places the said Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra under suspension with immediate effect.
It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force the headquarters of Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Senior Technical  Officer, Applied A1 Group, C-DAC, Pune shall be Pune and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra shall not leave  the headquarters without obtaining the written permission in advance of the undersigned.â
2. The main ground for challenging this order of suspension is, inter alia, that the order of suspension was issued by an incompetent authority. The applicant has further challenged that the order of suspension is not valid in law since his presence is not subversive of discipline in the office. By writing a joint letter to the IIT, Mumbai, the applicant has not committed any misconduct. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are : quashing and setting aside of the impugned suspension order dated 14.05.2013 and for a direction to allow the applicant to join his duties pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings as well as to pay the full salary and allowances, including consequential benefits of increment.
3. We have heard Shri P. J. Prasadrao, Learned Counsel for applicant and Shri S.P. Saxena, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1, 3, and 4. The pleadings as well as the documents annexed have also been perused.
4. Shri P.J. Prasadrao, Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that C-DAC has adopted the CCS (CCA) Rules. That is why in the impugned suspension order it is clearly mentioned that the order of suspension has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The impugned suspension order has been issued by the Executive Director of the C-DAC, who is not the competent authority inasmuch as the Appointing Authority of the applicant is the Director General, being the Respondent No. 3 herein.
5. The applicant has also annexed the bye-laws for C-DAC. From the schedule in respect of the appointing authorities in C-DAC, it appears that the Appointing Authority for the posts of Scientist 'C'/equivalent is the Director General. However, it is further mentioned in the same column that the Executive Director is the Appointing Authority for employees working in the Centres.
6. The Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant is serving in the Centre and, as such, the Executive Director is his Appointing Authority, so there is nothing improper in issuing the order of suspension by the Executive Director.
7. Learned Counsel for applicant, Shri Prasadrao, has referred to Annexure A-17, being the appointment letter of the applicant. The said appointment letter was issued by the Director General. Learned Counsel for applicant has also taken us through Annexure A-16, being the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee and submits that the said minutes of the meeting was also approved by the Director General. He submits that the suspension order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
8. The applicant also filed a Miscellaneous Application No. 706/2013 for taking certain documents on record. In the said Miscellaneous Application, the applicant annexed the order of extension of suspension dated 08.08.2013, which also refers to Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and it is mentioned there âafter reviewing, the order of suspension stands extended for a period of 90 days. The said order was also issued by the Executive Director.
9. The applicant in this O.A. challenged the letter dated 10.07.2013, which was issued in response to his representation dated 09.07.2013 via e.mail. The contents of the letter is as follows :
âSubject : Suspension Order No. P:ED:2013:011:AAIG:02/01 dated 14.05.2013.
I am in receipt of your email dated 9th July, 2013 regarding withdrawal of suspension order dated 14.05.2013 issued by Executive Director, C-DAC, Pune.
As I understand, the charge sheet has already been served in reference to this suspension order and the Departmental Enquiry is underway. You may represent your case in the Departmental Enquiry.
At this point of time, I do not see any appropriateness of my intervening in the process.â
10. The respondents, in their reply, have contended that C-DAC is a Society, headed by a Governing Council, constituted under the Rules and Regulations of the
Society. The Governing Council is the Apex Body. The Corporate Office of C-DAC is also located at Pune, which is headed by a Director General. In addition to Head/Corporate Office, there are various Centres of CDAC, which are located at ten places, including Pune. The Executive Director of the Centre of the Society is the Head of the Centre. The applicant serves in such Centre at Pune. It is further contended that if appointments of Scientist 'B' to Scientist 'F' is made in any of the ten Centres, then in such a case, it is the Executive Director of the concerned Centre, who is the competent authority. The Director General is the Appointing Authority for appointment at Corporate/Head Office but not in the Centre. The Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the offer of appointment, being Annexure A-17 to the O.A., was signed by the Director General because the then Director General designated was holding additional charge of Director General, being Executive Director, C-DAC, Pune Centre.
11. The Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that charge sheet has been issued to the applicant on 14.06.2013 and the inquiry has already been commenced for the misconduct of writing a joint letter by the applicant on 20.03.2013. The suspension of the applicant was ordered in contemplation of departmental enquiry as per rules. The applicant's suspension was reviewed by the competent authority, as required under the relevant rules and the authority decided to extend the suspension for another period of 90 days after 13.08.2013. The applicant has to wait for the outcome of the pending enquiry.
12. The Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the following decisions :
(i) O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others [1988 (1) AI SLJ 121]
(ii) Jitender Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr. [2010 (2) AI SLJ 24]
(iii) Haobijam Imocha Singh Vs. State of Manipur and Anr. [2012 (2) AI SLJ 366]
(iv) Krishna Kunal Vs. Union of India and Others [O.A. 345/2012] and Hinglajdan Vs. Union of India and Others [O.A. No. 376/2012] decided by common order dated 02.04.2013 by the Co-ordinate Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal at Jaipur.
13. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on the following decisions :
(i) Government of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. S. Vel Raj [1997 (2) AI SLJ 32]
(ii) Inspector General of Police and Another Vs. Thavasiappan [1996 (2) SCC 146]
(iii) Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 Vs. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy [1995 (1) SCC 332]
14. It appears from the impugned order of suspension that the same has been issued in terms of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The relevant part of Rule 10 is set out herein below :
10. Suspension :
(1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension (a) Where a disciplinary proceedingagainst him is contemplated or is pending; or
(aa) where, in the opinion of theauthority aforesaid, he has engaged himself inactivities prejudicial to the interest of thesecurity of the State; or
(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trialâ.
15. From the appointment letter it is evident that the appointment letter of the applicant was issued by the Director General. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the Director General will be the disciplinary authority at least in respect of the applicant. Nowhere from the pleadings or the documents it is revealed that any other authority has been empowered by the President by any order to place a Sr. Technical Officer working in C-DAC under suspension in terms of relevant rule of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. We have also gone through the bye-laws of the C-DAC. Bye-law 17.1 clearly mentions that âAppointing Authority shall be vested with the powers of Disciplinary Authority.
16. The applicant has annexed the statements of articles of charge. The said statement of articles of charge also says that the applicant is governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. There are fifteen (15) articles in the Statement of Articles of Charge. The misconduct alleged against the applicant is that the applicant has written a letter dated 20.03.2013 jointly with two other employees of C-DAC, namely âDr. Kajal Bajpai and Dr. Rudranarayan Mohapatra, concerning another employee of C-DAC, namely âMrs. Shraddha Kalele and alleged that an illegal and/or forged certificate was produced by Mrs. Shraddha Kalele at the time of appointment. The applicant made wild allegations without any subsistence, based on hypothesis and conjectures, raised question on the integrity of Prof. Pushpak Bhattacharya of I.I.T., Mumbai, have cast aspersion on the integrity of Ms. Shraddha Kalele, had questioned the reputation regarding honesty and integrity of Ms. Shraddha Kalele for reasons other than professional. All the articles of charge and statement of imputation alleging various misconduct emanates from writing the joint letter by the applicant addressed to the Director, IIT, Mumbai and the Minister of H.R.D. without forwarding through proper channel.
17. The Learned Counsel for respondents has handed over the minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee dated 08.08.2013. The Review Committee observed that revocation of suspension order was likely to prejudice and influence the pending inquiry for the following reasons :
(a) Possibility of tampering with the evidences, documents and witnesses.
(b) Subversion of office discipline.
(c) Tampering of data and its misuse.
(d) Misuse of official machinery and property.
18. It is well settled that the power of suspension ought to be exercised where it is necessary to prevent the charged officer from repeating the misconduct or tampering with material evidence or interfering with preliminary investigation. Suspension is also considered necessary to restore public faith in Government working by exhibiting authority's determination to firmly deal with cases of corruption and grave misconduct. The judicial intervention is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by rules. However, in the ultimate analysis, judicial review depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Vimal Kumar Mohanty [AIR 1994 SC2296] held that the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the Appointing Authority and on application of the mind by the Disciplinary Authority. However, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegation, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry.
20. The judgments relied on by the respondents are mostly dealing with the interference at the charge sheet stage or competence of the authority issuing the charge sheet.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others [1988 (1) AI SLJ 121] held that an order of suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service. He continues to be a member but there is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless departmental enquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects a Government servant injuriously. During suspension the Government employee has to survive on subsistence allowance. The dictionary meaning of the word 'subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.II at p. 2171 is 'to remain alive as on food; to continue to existâ.
"Subsistence" implies -means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. In the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others [1983] 1 SCR 828 the Court held that the expression 'life' does not merely connote animal existence or a continued drudgery through life. The expression 'life' has a much wider meaning. Therefore, although suspension is not one of the punishments specified in rule 11 of the rules, an order of suspension is not to be lightly passed against the government servant.
22. Now in the instant case, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that since the appointment letter dated 14.09.2007 was issued to the applicant by the Director General, therefore the Appointing Authority of the applicant is the Director General. Further, in the letter for continuation of the contract service of the applicant with C-DAC at Pune Centre issued by the Executive Director, reference has been given to the said appointment letter dated 14.09.2007. In terms of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the impugned order of suspension in respect of the applicant has not been issued by the Appointing Authority. As such, the Executive Director, in the instant case, is not competent to pass the order of suspension. Paragraph 17.1 of the Bye-law clearly says that the Appointing Authority shall be vested with the powers of Disciplinary Authority.
23. The applicant has filed a representation to review the extension of the suspension order, which has also not been properly attended by the Review Committee. We have gone through the minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee. The Review Committee only routinely mentioned that there was possibility of tampering with the evidence, documents and witnesses; subversion of office discipline; tampering of data and its misuse; and misuse of official machinery and property. From the nature of the misconduct alleged against the applicant, it seems that there is hardly any likelihood of arising of such situation in the instant case.
24. In his appeal addressed to the Director General, dated 09.07.2013, the applicant has mentioned that there was no bad intention or ill motive to disrepute the image of IIT, Mumbai and C-DAC. The applicant has not committed any misconduct. The whole object was protection of pay at par with Ms. Shraddha Kalele with effect from the date of joining of the applicant in CDAC. The grievance was that Ms. Shraddha Kalele was drawing more pay than the applicant despite being a junior candidate in the merit list and less qualified than the applicant. From the representation of the applicant it appears that the applicant's contention is that the applicant asked for some information to get credible and authentic information with regard to âexperience certificate of one Ms. Shraddha Kalele inasmuch as the applicant being higher in merit and experience was getting lesser pay. The applicant has further contended that in the letter No. Corp-RTI/201213/191 dated 04.02.2013 directions were given to approach appropriate authority who held the information. Therefore, with reasonable belief and good faith a joint letter was written and the information provided. Be that as it may, the above contentions of the applicant raised in the appeal touches the merit of the pending disciplinary proceedings.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that having regard to the serious repercussion on livelihood, it has been emphasized that an order of interim suspension can only be made after the authority comes to the conclusion that there are sufficient reasons for keeping him under suspension. In other words, there has to be a proper application of mind and satisfaction that suspension is called for in a given case. After pointing out that suspension is a unqualified right of the employer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Capt. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited [AIR 1999 SC 1416] that the right cannot be exercised for trivial lapse nor should the authorities concerned be afflicted by 'suspension syndrome' and place employees under suspension. It is not understood how an organization like C-DAC can afford not to utilize the services of the three Scientists.
26. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and law, in our view, the impugned order of suspension cannot be sustained. The impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. It would be open to the respondents to continue with and complete the disciplinary proceedings within a short time, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
27. The O.A. stands allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to join duties forthwith pending completion of disciplinary proceedings. The period of suspension shall be regulated as per the applicable rules at appropriate time. M.A. No. 706/2013 also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.