KASHI NATH PANDEY,J. - (1.) HEARD Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Ajay Bhanot for the petitioners and Sri Avnish Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits having been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. By means of present writ petition, the Union of India has challenged the order dated 6.3.2009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the original Application No. 1561 of 2008 filed by Ishwari Narayan Singh challenging his suspension order dated 21.1.2004 as well as the order dated 9.9.2005, rejecting the representation of the respondent for revocation of his suspension order.
(3.) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding the issues raised in the writ petition are that; the respondent, while was working as Sub Post Master at Teliabagh, Post Office West Division, Varanasi, complaints were received in October, 2004 that at Sub Post Office, Teliabagh there was embezzlement of crores of rupees. The Sub Post Master, Kashi Vidyapith wrote a letter to the higher authorities on 3.12.2009, making serious allegations. An order dated 3.12.2004 was passed by the Superintending of Post Office West Division, Varanasi placing the petitioner under suspension in exercise of power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as '1965 Rules') in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry. The Director, Postal Services, Allahabad Region sent a letter to the DIG, CBI requesting for lodging a first information report and to inquire into a fraud case committed at Teliabagh post office, Varanasi. The CBI conducted an investigation and lodged a first information report on 4.3.2005 under section 120 read with section 409 I.P.C and Sections 13(2), 13(i) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was also arrested by the CBI on 6.4.2005 and was released on bail by order of Special judge, Anti-Corruption Act, Lucknow dated 6.7.2005. A chargesheet dated 31.8.2005 was issued to the respondent, which could be delivered on 13.9.2005. The respondent after being released from detention on 6.7.2005, appears to have submitted a representation on 20.7.2005 against the suspension order. Again he submitted a further representation for revocation of suspension on 22.8.2005. The representation dated 22.8.2005 of the respondent was rejected. The Review Committee met on 5.9.2005 to review the suspension of the respondent and took the view that the suspension continue in view of the CBI inquiry being continuing, letter dated 9.9.2005 was sent to the petitioner informing continuance of his suspension by Superintendent of Post Office, West Division Varanasi. Another letter dated 8.9.2009 was sent to the petitioner by Post Master General, Allahabad informing that his representation dated 22.8.2005 has been rejected and the review Committee decided to continue the suspension. The respondent filed an Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad praying for following reliefs. "In view of the facts and reasons mentioned in paragraph no. 4 above, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to grant the following reliefs:- (i) to issue an order, rule or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2004 passed by the respondent no. 3 placing the applicant under suspension (Annexure No. A-1 in compilation No. Part I). (ii) to issue an order, rule or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 9.9.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 communicated by the respondent no. 3 rejecting the representation/appeal of the applicant for revocation of suspension order passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. A-2 in compilation no. and Part i). (iii) to issue an order, rule, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 5 to revoke the suspension of the applicant and reinstate him on his post. (iv) to issue any other order, rule or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. " A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner refuting the claim of the respondent. It was stated by the petitioner that the respondent was suspended on the allegation of misappropriation of huge amount of sale proceeds of Kisan Vikas Patra and N.S.C. by the respondent. It was further stated that representation of the respondent for revocation of suspension was rejected and decision was intimated to him vide letter dated 9.9.2005. It was stated that chargesheet had already been served and departmental inquiry was proceeding. It was also stated that the suspension of the respondent was required to be extended as such it was reviewed regularly by the competent authority from time to time. ;