Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and the Director General of Police filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dated 19th February, 2010, in Original Application No. 482 of 2007. The Original Application was filed by respondent No. 1, an Additional Commissioner of Police under suspension, seeking to challenge his suspension and for directions to revoke it and reinstate him with effect from 16th September, 2000 with all consequential benefits. The respondent contended that the Competent Authority failed to review the suspension order within the time specified under sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, rendering his continued suspension illegal. The Tribunal accepted this challenge and allowed the Original Application, directing reinstatement with retrospective effect and all consequential benefits within four days. The petitioners resisted the application on the ground of delay and laches, arguing that the application was filed on 27th August, 2007, challenging suspension from 16th September, 2000. The High Court, after considering the submissions, upheld the Tribunal's order, finding that the continued suspension was illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory review requirement. The court rejected the delay and laches objection, holding that the illegality was continuing. The decision was in favor of the respondent (the suspended officer).
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Review under Rule 3(8) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - Continued suspension beyond 90 days without mandatory review renders suspension illegal - The Competent Authority failed to review the suspension order within the time specified under sub-rule (8) of Rule 3, making the continued suspension illegal and without authority of law. The Tribunal directed reinstatement with retrospective effect and consequential benefits. (Paras 1-3)
B) Service Law - Delay and Laches - Continuing illegality - Delay in challenging suspension not a bar when the illegality is continuing - The petitioners' objection of delay and laches was rejected as the suspension continued to be illegal each day, and the Tribunal's order was upheld. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the continued suspension of respondent No. 1 from 16th September, 2000 was illegal due to non-compliance with sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, and whether the Original Application was barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dated 19th February, 2010, which directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent No. 1 in service with retrospective effect from 16th September, 2000 and grant all consequential benefits within four days.
Law Points
- Suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days under Rule 3(8) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
- 1969
- failure renders continued suspension illegal
- delay and laches not a bar when illegality is continuing
- Tribunal can grant retrospective reinstatement with consequential benefits
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 93
WRIT PETITION NO. 7071 OF 2010
A.M. Khanwilkar, R.Y. Ganoo
Mr. Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P., for the Petitioners; Mr. R.R. Shetty for Respondent No. 1
The State of Maharashtra and The Director General of Police
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which allowed the Original Application of respondent No. 1 challenging his suspension.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (State of Maharashtra and Director General of Police) sought to set aside the Tribunal's order directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with retrospective effect and consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order on the ground that the Original Application was barred by delay and laches and that the suspension was valid.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, by judgment dated 19th February, 2010, in Original Application No. 482 of 2007, allowed the application of respondent No. 1, holding his continued suspension illegal and directing reinstatement with retrospective effect from 16th September, 2000 and all consequential benefits within four days.
Issues
Whether the continued suspension of respondent No. 1 from 16th September, 2000 was illegal due to non-compliance with sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969?
Whether the Original Application was barred by delay and laches?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Original Application suffered from delay and laches as it was filed on 27th August, 2007 challenging suspension from 16th September, 2000.
Respondent No. 1 contended that the Competent Authority failed to review the suspension order within the time specified under sub-rule (8) of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, rendering his continued suspension illegal.
Ratio Decidendi
The continued suspension of a government servant beyond the period specified for review under Rule 3(8) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, without a review by the Competent Authority, renders the suspension illegal and without authority of law. Delay and laches cannot be a bar when the illegality is continuing.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dated 19th February, 2010, in Original Application No. 482 of 2007.
The Tribunal accepted the said challenge and allowed the Original Application preferred by respondent No. 1 on the finding that the continued suspension of respondent No. 1 from 16th September, 2000 was illegal, for which reason, the petitioners were directed to reinstate respondent No. 1 in service with retrospective effect from 16th September, 2000 and respondent No. 1 be given all consequential benefits within four days from the date of receipt of the order.
Procedural History
Respondent No. 1 filed Original Application No. 482 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, on 27th August, 2007, challenging his suspension from 16th September, 2000. The Tribunal allowed the application on 19th February, 2010. The State of Maharashtra and the Director General of Police filed Writ Petition No. 7071 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 6th January, 2012.
Acts & Sections
- All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969: Rule 3(8)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
