dofp2024_00815 — As the period of suspension in the present case who was compulsorily retired from service, i.e. suspension period from 3-4-2004 till he was compulsorily retired, is not indicated as to how that period is to be treated, the suspension period from 3-4-2004 till the date of compulsory retirement is to be treated as qualifying service for purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and to grant the Applicant all consequential benefits including arrear differential pension and pensionary benefits as p

DoFP

As the period of suspension in the present case who was compulsorily retired from service, i.e. suspension period from 3-4-2004 till he was compulsorily retired, is not indicated as to how that period is to be treated, the suspension period from 3-4-2004 till the date of compulsory retirement is to be treated as qualifying service for purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and to grant the Applicant all consequential benefits including arrear differential pension and pensionary benefits as per provisions of law within three months — This chunk discusses the requirement for the Competent Authority to mention reasons for suspension in cases of compulsory retirement, as well as the need to specify the period of suspension to calcul... — Facts: Applicant while working under the Respondents was placed under suspension on 7-7-2003. First review of his suspension was conducted by Review Committee on 30-8-2004 in which Appellate Authority was not a Member. In the Review Committee, compulsory retirement was imposed on 16-4-2009. The plea of the Applicant is that, his suspension period is deemed to be held as reinstated as suspension was not done by the appropriate Committee in terms of OM, dated 19-3-2004 (A/6). In OA, it is mentioned that as per Rule 10 (6) and (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, an order of suspension is required to be reviewed within 90 days and as per OM, dated 19-3-2004 (A/6), all pending cases of suspension has to be reviewed on or before 2-4-2004. Applicant states that if review of suspension had been conducted on 30-8-2004,his continuation of suspension is considered as illegal and he will be deemed to have been reinstated in service with effect from 3-4-2004 with all service benefits. Delay in filing this case came to the knowledge of the Applicant belatedly. Hence the delay in filing this case is condoned. Reply has been filed justifying the punishment. M.A. No. 295 of 2018 for amendment of OA to quash the proceedings of Review Committee, dated 30-8-2004 (A/4) is not necessary since the continuation of the order of suspension from 3-4-2004 has been challenged in this OA. Hence this MA is dismissed for condoning delay. Both the case and MA are heard together. Respondents failed their reply assailing the challenge of the Applicant. The OA is to be decided on two grounds. He filed this case earlier challenging his suspension which was unsuccessful. So also punishment order. Hence it is not open to raise the issue belatedly in this OA. Secondly, the OA is barred by limitation which has not been explained satisfactorily. Earlier when he challenged the Disciplinary Proceedings, suspension and punishment orders in a series of litigations, he has not challenged the review of his suspension. It is stated that his suspension came to his knowledge after receipt of information on 4-10-2010 / 21-10-2010 under RTI Act, 2005, after which he submitted a representation, dated 25-10-2010 to the authorities. When the order of compulsory retirement was issued vide Order, dated 16-4-2009 (A/4), it is incumbent on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to have passed an order as to how the period of suspension will be treated. In this connection, provisions of sub-rules (5) and (7) of the Fundamental Rules FR 54-B is to be studied. These Rules (5) and (7) is reproduced. When compulsory retirement was ordered, the reason for suspension is to be mentioned. But that was not mentioned in this case. Competent Authority should have mentioned in the final order or by separate order as required under sub-rule (5) of FR 54-B. Reasons for suspension is also not mentioned in the pleadings of the Respondent. The period of suspension is to be mentioned to calculate the qualifying service which has a bearing for pensionary benefits. The extent of suspension period will be counted under Rule 23 of CCS (Pension) Rules for the purpose of qualifying service of the Applicant on which pension and pensionary benefits has a bearing. No pleadings regarding the period of suspension and its repercussion is mentioned by both the parties in their affidavit. In view of the above, M.A. No. 18 of 2011 for condoning delay in filing this OA is necessarily to be considered as non-consideration would affect pension and pensionary benefits under Rule 23 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In that circumstance, Tribunal considered the grounds mentioned in M.A. No. 18 of 2011 for its satisfactory dealings. The MA is allowed and delay in filing this OA is condoned. Applicant remained silent after review of his suspension on the ground that review was not informed to him. It is necessary for the Respondents to review the suspension of the Applicant as per OM, dated 13-4-2004 and to comply with sub-rule (5) of FR 54-B. Applicant requests to treat him as on duty during the suspension period after 2-4-2004 since his suspension was not extended as per requirements of Rule 10 (6) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with OM, dated 19-3-2004 (A/6). Applicant also failed to raise these issues in his previous OA. Hence while claiming for payment of full salary / increments during the said period treating it as duty is untenable. But counting that period for purpose of pension and pensionary benefits deserves to be considered.

DoFP

As the period of suspension in the present case who was compulsorily retired from service, i.e. suspension period from 3-4-2004 till he was compulsorily retired, is not indicated as to how that period is to be treated, the suspension period from 3-4-2004 till the date of compulsory retirement is to be treated as qualifying service for purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and to grant the Applicant all consequential benefits including arrear differential pension and pensionary benefits as per provisions of law within three months — This chunk discusses the requirement for the Competent Authority to mention reasons for suspension in cases of compulsory retirement, as well as the need to specify the period of suspension to calcul... — Facts: Applicant while working under the Respondents was placed under suspension on 7-7-2003. First review of his suspension was conducted by Review Committee on 30-8-2004 in which Appellate Authority was not a Member. In the Review Committee, compulsory retirement was imposed on 16-4-2009. The plea of the Applicant is that, his suspension period is deemed to be held as reinstated as suspension was not done by the appropriate Committee in terms of OM, dated 19-3-2004 (A/6). In OA, it is mentioned that as per Rule 10 (6) and (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, an order of suspension is required to be reviewed within 90 days and as per OM, dated 19-3-2004 (A/6), all pending cases of suspension has to be reviewed on or before 2-4-2004. Applicant states that if review of suspension had been conducted on 30-8-2004,his continuation of suspension is considered as illegal and he will be deemed to have been reinstated in service with effect from 3-4-2004 with all service benefits. Delay in filing this case came to the knowledge of the Applicant belatedly. Hence the delay in filing this case is condoned. Reply has been filed justifying the punishment. M.A. No. 295 of 2018 for amendment of OA to quash the proceedings of Review Committee, dated 30-8-2004 (A/4) is not necessary since the continuation of the order of suspension from 3-4-2004 has been challenged in this OA. Hence this MA is dismissed for condoning delay. Both the case and MA are heard together. Respondents failed their reply assailing the challenge of the Applicant. The OA is to be decided on two grounds. He filed this case earlier challenging his suspension which was unsuccessful. So also punishment order. Hence it is not open to raise the issue belatedly in this OA. Secondly, the OA is barred by limitation which has not been explained satisfactorily. Earlier when he challenged the Disciplinary Proceedings, suspension and punishment orders in a series of litigations, he has not challenged the review of his suspension. It is stated that his suspension came to his knowledge after receipt of information on 4-10-2010 / 21-10-2010 under RTI Act, 2005, after which he submitted a representation, dated 25-10-2010 to the authorities. When the order of compulsory retirement was issued vide Order, dated 16-4-2009 (A/4), it is incumbent on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to have passed an order as to how the period of suspension will be treated. In this connection, provisions of sub-rules (5) and (7) of the Fundamental Rules FR 54-B is to be studied. These Rules (5) and (7) is reproduced. When compulsory retirement was ordered, the reason for suspension is to be mentioned. But that was not mentioned in this case. Competent Authority should have mentioned in the final order or by separate order as required under sub-rule (5) of FR 54-B. Reasons for suspension is also not mentioned in the pleadings of the Respondent. The period of suspension is to be mentioned to calculate the qualifying service which has a bearing for pensionary benefits. The extent of suspension period will be counted under Rule 23 of CCS (Pension) Rules for the purpose of qualifying service of the Applicant on which pension and pensionary benefits has a bearing. No pleadings regarding the period of suspension and its repercussion is mentioned by both the parties in their affidavit. In view of the above, M.A. No. 18 of 2011 for condoning delay in filing this OA is necessarily to be considered as non-consideration would affect pension and pensionary benefits under Rule 23 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In that circumstance, Tribunal considered the grounds mentioned in M.A. No. 18 of 2011 for its satisfactory dealings. The MA is allowed and delay in filing this OA is condoned. Applicant remained silent after review of his suspension on the ground that review was not informed to him. It is necessary for the Respondents to review the suspension of the Applicant as per OM, dated 13-4-2004 and to comply with sub-rule (5) of FR 54-B. Applicant requests to treat him as on duty during the suspension period after 2-4-2004 since his suspension was not extended as per requirements of Rule 10 (6) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with OM, dated 19-3-2004 (A/6). Applicant also failed to raise these issues in his previous OA. Hence while claiming for payment of full salary / increments during the said period treating it as duty is untenable. But counting that period for purpose of pension and pensionary benefits deserves to be considered.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text