- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 9.6.2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction order dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure-12) passed by the respondent No. 3, General Manager, Telecom Dist. Pali, Rajasthan, by which suspension of the petitioner was further extended for a period of 180 days, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances : (i) That the petitioner was appointed on the post of JTO in the Department of Telecom in the year 1995. He was transferred from Samdari to the office of BSNL at Jaitaran under command and control of General Manager, Telecom Pali, Marwar Dist. Pali, Rajasthan (respondent No. 3) on 10.9.2001 vide order dated 10.9.2001 (Annexure-1). (ii) Further case of the petitioner is that an FIR under the Anti Corruption Act for bribery of Rs. 1,500/- was lodged against the petitioner on the complaint of one Suresh Puri on 13.1.2003 and the same was registered by Anti Corruption Bureau (C.B.I.) Jodhpur. Thereafter, the petitioner was served a memorandum along with statement of allegation (Annexure-2) on 30.12.2003 wherein respondent No. 3 (GMTD, Pali) proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. (iii) Further case of the petitioner is that he was suspended under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965) by order dated 25.2.2003 (Annexure-3). (iv) That further case of the petitioner is that unamended Rule 10 of Rules of 1965 provides for suspension of an employee, but without any time limit, therefore the Government of India amended the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965 and Hon'ble President of India in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution of India amended the Rule 10 of Rules of 1965 and new Rules were called as the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Amendment Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Rules of 2003) and accordingly the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) issued gazette notification on 23.12.2003 (Annexure-4). (v) That the further case of petitioner is that the Amendment Rules of 2003 were made effective after expiry of ninety days from the date of their publication in the official gazette. (vi) Further case of the petitioner is that Amendment Rules of 2003 were published in official gazette on 3.1.2004 and it came into force w.e.f. 3.4.2004. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that after coming into force Amendment rules of 2003, the respondent No. 3 (GMTD, Pali) passed a fresh order of suspension vide order dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure-12) and this order has been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.) In this writ petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner : (i) That new amended Rules of 2003 became effective w.e.f. 3.4.2004 and according to learned counsel for the petitioner before 2.4.2004, the case of the petitioner should have been reviewed by the competent authority and but after 2.4.2004, the suspension was required to be extended by the Review Committee and since through order dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure-12), suspension of the petitioner was extended for a period of 180 days by the respondent No. 3 (GMTD, Pali) without referring the matter to the Review Committee, therefore, the order dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure-12) is unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and anti-thesis to mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That upto 2.4.2004 since suspension of the petitioner was not extended by the respondents and after 2.4.2004, no review committee was constituted to consider the case of the petitioner for extension of suspension, therefore, the impugned order dated 27.4.2004 by which suspension of the petitioner was extended by respondent No. 3 (GMTD, Pali) is without jurisdiction.;