- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.07.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) by which, the OA filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the following observation:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and of the view that since the appeal of the applicant against his suspension order is pending before the competent authority and the competent authority has already seized of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice; if the direction is given to the competent authority to decide the appeal of the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, without going into merits of the case, the competent authority is directed to decide the appeal of the applicant against his suspension order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing a speaking and reasoned order".
(2.) THE petitioner filed OA before the Tribunal with the following prayer:- (i) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.6.2004 by which the applicant has been suspended from service. Main contention of the petitioner is with regard to the interpretation of instruction issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training vide Circular dated 7.1.2004 which is reproduced here under:- "The review committee may take a view regarding revocation/continuation of the suspension keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account that unduly long suspension like putting employee concerned to undue hardship, involved payment of subsistence allowance without the employee performing any useful service to the Government. Without prejudice to the foregoing if the officer has been under suspension for one without any charges being filed in court of law or no charge memo has been issued in the departmental enquiry he shall ordinarily be reinstated in service without prejudice to the case against him. However, in case if the officer is in police/judicial custody or is accused of serious crime or the matter involved national security the review committee may recommend the continuation of the suspension of the official concerned." By referring the aforesaid circular/order, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lodha, submits that the Tribunal ought to have decide the OA on merit on the basis of circular dated 7.1.2004. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the provisions of rule 10(1)(b) of CCA Rules which postulates that appropriate authority can place a government servant under suspension where the case against him in respect of criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial. In respect of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case "State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanti" reported in 1994(2) SLR P.384 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down the parameter for the departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal charge. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Tribunal as well the relevant provisions of law. Upon perusal of the order impugned passed by the Tribunal it appears that the Tribunal has rightly not discussed the matter on merit as it directed the competent authority to decide the appeal of the applicant against the suspension order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thus the grievance of the petitioner regarding prolonged suspension is already meted out at the level of the Tribunal.
(3.) IN view of this observation, we find no fault in the order dated 18.7.2005 passed by the Tribunal and as such it does not require any interference by this court. Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost.;