ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Shri B.M. Anand, Director, Inspection & Investigation, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question order dated 24.5.2007 vide which he was placed under suspension, as also order dated 20.8.2007 vide which his suspension has been ordered to continue till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 30.11.2007. Reading of order dated 24.5.2007 placing the applicant under suspension would show that a criminal case has been registered against the applicant by the CBI which is of possessing disproportionate assets commensurate to the known sources of income of the applicant. The applicant, it further appears, has been placed under suspension under provisions contained in rule 10(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Reading of order dated 20.8.2007 would show that the suspension of the applicant was reviewed by the review committee on 3.8.2007 in terms of Sub-rules (6) and (7) of rule 10 of the 1965 Rules read with DOP&T OM No. 11012/4/2003-Estt.(A) dated 7.1.2004. The review committee after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, recommended suspension of the applicant till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 30.11.2007. It is conceded position that the applicant is also facing a departmental enquiry which was initiated against him vide charge memo dated 31.8.2007. Five charges have been farmed against the applicant which read as follows:
Article of charge-I
That Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, in 2001 purchased an Apartment at 305, Building No. 4, Shanthi Park Apartments, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore and in 2003 purchased an Apartment at 207, Bombay House, No. 55, Kanakpura Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore in the name of his wife Smt. Lakshmi Anand for a sum of Rs. 7,24,040/- and Rs. 23,14,925/- respectively without intimation/prior approval of the Competent Authority.
Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, by failing to inform/taking prior permission of the Competent authority about purchase of Apartments at 305, Building No. 4, Shahthi Park Apartments, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore and at 207, Bombay House, No. 55, Kanakpura Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore in the name of his wife Smt. Lakshmi Anand has, thus, violated the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article of charge-II
That Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, was found in possession of Gold ornaments worth Rs. 3,85,600/- without intimation to the Competent Authority.
Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi by failing to inform the Competent Authority about possession of Gold ornaments worth Rs. 3,85,600/- has, thus, violated the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article of charge-III
That Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, was found in possession of Fixed Deposits in different Banks worth Rs. 53,87,353/- without intimation to the Competent Authority.
Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi by failing to inform the Competent Authority about possession of Fixed Deposits in different Banks worth Rs. 53,87,353/- has, thus, violated the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article of charge-IV
That Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, was found in possession of the following:
14,975 shares in different companies worth Rs. 6,93,992/-.
IDBI Bonds (16 Numbers) worth Rs. 76,000/-
ICICI Bonds (14 Numbers) worth Rs. 70,000/-.
Balance in Chit Fund Number KS/10-1, maintained with Baluserry Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Co., Bangalore worth Rs. 66,250/-.
UTI, Unit-64 (4600 Units/Bonds) worth Rs. 66,390.
Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi by failing to inform the Competent Authority about possession of 14,975 shares in different companies worth Rs. 6,93,992/-, IDBI Bonds (16 Numbers) worth Rs. 76,000/-, ICICI Bonds (14 Numbers) worth Rs. 70,000/-, Balance in Chit Fund Number KS/10-1, maintained with Baluserry Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Co., Bangalore worth Rs. 66,250/- and UTI, Unit-64 (4600 Units/Bonds) worth Rs. 66,390/- has, thus, violated the provisions contained in rule 18 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article of charge-V
That Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi, during the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2005 was found in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 99,18,534/- to the known legal sources of income.
By acquiring disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 99,18,534/- through illegal means Shri BM Anand, DII (Under Suspension), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant and has, thus, violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
2. The counsel representing the applicant vehemently contends that the wife of the applicant has an independent source of income being employed and her assets have been clubbed with those of the applicant, and the charges framed against the applicant are absolutely frivolous and cannot sustain. He also contends that suspension of an employee is a serious matter and unless the concerned authority may apply its mind to the various aspects of the case, no order of suspension can be passed. For the second contention of the learned Counsel, as noted above, reliance has been placed upon a Single Bench decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 1608/2006 decided on 3.10.2006 in the matter of P.C. Mishra v. Secretary to Government of India and Anr.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the applicant at considerable length. The first contention of the learned Counsel, as noted above, is in the realm of facts and cannot be appropriately adjudicated by this Tribunal. It would be open for the applicant, however, to prove that the properties or other assets said to be belonging to the applicant are in fact and reality owned exclusively by his wife or were obtained partly on the dint of income earned by her, and if the income of the applicant and his wife is clubbed, it would not be a case of disproportionate assets commensurate to the known sources of income of the applicant. This Tribunal would not be in a position to record a finding on the defence projected by the applicant and, as mentioned above, this would be in the domain of the enquiry officer or the criminal court seized of the criminal case against the applicant. The other contention of the learned Counsel, as noted above, is equally devoid of any merit.
4. Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules dealing with suspension clearly authorises the concerned authority to place an employee under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Once, in the impugned order of suspension the details of the case are given, there would be no requirement to further record reasons. The judgment of this Tribunal in P.C.Mishra (supra) relied upon by the counsel is in the facts of that case and does not lay down any general proposition of law. The facts of the case aforesaid would show that the applicant therein was under suspension for a period of seven years and the criminal trial against him had almost come to an end. It is in these circumstances that the learned Single Bench observed in paragraphs 54 and 55 as follows:
54. Another aspect of the matter, which I would like to consider, is that when a discretion is vested in Review Committee deciding the revocation of suspension, they are not to act mechanically. With the passage of each day, the circumstances changed, as also the stage of the prosecution and implications to be involved therein. If all the witnesses are examined and only CBI officials are left, the ground of influencing the prosecution witnesses would be very illogical or irrational. However, the other ground of applicant having caught red handed is belied by the order passed by the Special Judge in granting bail to the applicant where it is demonstrated that the money was recovered elsewhere.
55. No doubt, a person accused of corruption charges, on reinstatement, may be a wrong example, which would be conveyed to others, but FIR not being the proof of guilt and when the entire trial has almost completed, person can be reinstated and to ensure that others get lesson, may be posted to a non-sensitive place, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. However, that depends upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case but the mandate as an obligation upon the Reviewing Authorities to examine and then pass a reasoned order, which would not appear in judicial review, to be a mechanical exercise by reiterating what has been stated in earlier orders. The changed circumstances would have to be considered and certainly would have entailed a change in the reasoning recorded by subsequent Review Committee.
5. The observations made by the Tribunal reproduced above would show that the same were primarily on the dint of facts of that case. However, assuming that while reviewing an order of suspension and continuing the same, the situation obtainable on the said date may have to be taken into consideration, the counsel for the applicant is not able to point out any material change in the facts and circumstances of the case. We may, however, mention that the only change, as per counsel, in the circumstances while extending the suspension of the applicant vide orders dated 20.8.2007 is presenting a challan in the criminal case against the applicant. We are at a loss to understand as to how this change in circumstance would go in favour of the applicant. As long as the challan was not put in, it could perhaps be urged that the prosecuting agency has not made up its mind to prosecute the applicant, as the facts of the case would not substantiate the allegations made against the applicant, but once, challan is put up, it is understood that insofar as at least the prosecution is concerned, it has a sustainable case in a court of law.
6. Finding no merit in this Application, we dismiss the same in limine.