M.Y. Eqbal , J. - (1.) IN this application the petitioner has prayed fore quashing the order dated 22.7.2008 passed on O.A. No. 55/2008, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order of suspension passed by the respondent authority.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a member of Indian Forest Services and placed under Jharkhand. When he was serving as Deputy Director (Marketing), Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation. Ranchi, two FIRs were registered against him i.e. Crime Nos. 50/98 and 66/98 of Latehar Police Station. The allegations were that he committed serious irregularities of fraudulent procurement and involved in conspiracy, misappropriation of funds and financial irregularities. Chargesheets were also filed against the petitioner in both the above cases, which are pending for disposal. While the criminal case was instituted against the petitioner, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner was, therefore, put under suspension, vide order dated 25.7.2005 according to the provisions contained in Rule 3(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (in short the Rules). Subsequently the petitioner was granted bail by the High Court on 3.8.2005. The respondent then issued another notification dated 29.6.2006 putting the petitioner and suspension with effect from 24.8.2005 under Rule 3(3) of the said Rules. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notification before the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the impugned order is totally contrary to and in violation of the provisions of Rule 3(8) of the Rules.
(3.) MR . Sahanl, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the first order of suspension dated 25.7.2005 putting the petitioner under suspension was Issued under Rule 3(2) of the said Rules without complying the provisions of Rule 3(8)(a) of the Rules by extending it for a period of 180 days after expiry of 90 days and also by not complying the Rule 3(8)(b) of the said Rules, which is against the provisions of the said Rules. Consequently the second order of suspension with retrospective effect cannot be sustained in law.;