The Lieutenent Governor And ORS v. Shri Jose P John
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WPCT/40/2025 The Lieutenant Governor and others Vs Shri. Jose P John Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the petitioners Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.Ajith Prasad ... for the respondent October 29, 2025 [AKB] Item No.3 The administration has challenged an interim order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata dated August 04, 2025. The respondent filed the original application being OA/1103/2025 with a prayer for quashing of the suspension order dated July 24/25, 2025 which was issued under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. According to the respondent, he had faced a criminal trial on the complaint filed by a female colleague, alleging sexual harassment. The respondent was acquitted. A CBI investigation was also initiated against him sometime in March, 2020 vide CBI RC Case No. 121 of 2020 on the issue of disproportionate assets.
Final Report was filed by CBI without recommendation for prosecution. It was stated that a departmental proceeding could be initiated under the service rules. In the said report, assets disproportionate to the income of the respondent, to the extent of the 24%, was found. The said report was not accepted by the learned Special Judge, Port Blair and a further investigation was directed. Upon further investigation, the CBI filed another closure report on April 29,
2023. In the concluding part of the said report, it was observed that the respondent was found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his income to the tune of Rs. 20,70,402/-. The extent of the disproportionate asset was reduced to 5.48%. Thus, the CBI was of the opinion that it was not a suitable case for launching a prosecution. Observation was made that, a departmental proceeding could be initiated by the employer under the rules.
The learned Tribunal assessed these factual aspects and came to a finding that balance of convenience was in favour of the respondent. The suspension order was stayed till the next date of hearing. The petitioners were directed to file their rejoinder. The Tribunal perused the relevant rules and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.B. Gohil vs. The Union of India reported in 2011 (1) SCC (LS) 213. The preliminary objection with regard to an alternative remedy of appeal was not accepted by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal was impressed with the submission made on behalf of the respondent that, although disciplinary proceedings had been recommended in 2023, the same had not been initiated until March 2025 and the suspension order was issued four months after issuance of the memorandum and articles of charges.
Mr. V.D.Sivabalan, learned advocate on behalf of the administration submits that the order passed by the learned Tribunal was not only contrary to the service rules, but also to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the right of an employer to proceed departmentally against the employee and also keep the employee under suspension, in
order to avoid tampering of evidence and intimidation of witnesses. He urged that, it was entirely the discretion of the employer as to whether an employee who had been, prima facie, found to be guilty of misconduct should be permitted to continue his service when disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. The CBI had all along recommended that disciplinary proceeding should be initiated and the said proceeding was independent of any criminal investigation. The service rules would be applicable and the learned Tribunal acted beyond jurisdiction by staying the order of suspension. Mr. Kabir, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that two closure reports were filed by the CBI, upon elaborate and detailed investigation. The first closure report was submitted before the Special Judge, CBI, Port Blair in 2021. The amount disproportionate to the income was quantified at Rs.
80,94,119/-.
The percentage of disproportionate asset was found to be 24.01%.
The recommendation was that disciplinary proceeding would be initiated as per service rules. The same was not accepted by the Court and a reinvestigation was directed.
By a letter dated December 12, 2022, the CBI wrote to the Chief Secretary-cum-CVO, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, inter alia, stating that, the closure report was filed before the learned Special Judge, Port Blair. The same was not accepted.
The Assistant Secretary (Vigilance), Andaman and Nicobar Administration, by a letter dated March 07, 2023 informed the Chief Engineer, Nirman Bhawan, APWD, Port Blair
not to initiate any disciplinary proceeding as the CBI was reinvestigating the matter. Another supplementary closure report was filed by the CBI. In the said report the calculation of the disproportionate asset had been reduced substantially and it was found that the percentage of the disproportionate asset was around 5.48% i.e. to the tune of Rs. 20,70,402/-. The said report was accepted by learned special Judge. It is true that, there is a recommendation for a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the CBI investigation. It was, prima facie, found by the investigating agency that around Rs. 20 Lakhs was disproportionate. The right of the employer to proceed departmentally against that employee is always available in law.
It is pointed out by Mr. Kabir that the charge sheet is based on the final report filed in 2021 which was ultimately not accepted by the Court, but reinvestigation was directed and pursuant to such reinvestigation the percentage of disproportionate asset was found to be considerably low i.e. 5.48%.
At this stage, this issue is not gone into in detail, but the suspension has been initiated on the basis of such findings of the CBI which was ultimately not accepted and a second report was filed.
However, the conduct of the employer raises a serious doubt as to whether at this stage there was any necessity to put the respondent under suspension, after more than four years from initiation of the first CBI investigation and after four months from initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. The
records and the documents in support of the case of employer were already seized by the CBI. The respondent cannot have access to the same. It appears that, the documents on the basis of which the charges are to be proved were in the custody of the CBI and the same documents are relied upon by the authorities. Prima facie, we do not find that there was any emergent need to put the respondent under suspension after he had cooperated with the CBI during the prolonged investigation. There are no allegations of tampering with the evidence and intimidation of witnesses. Thus, considering the facts which have been narrated above we do not think that an immediate suspension was on the cards after a period of five years from the first investigation on the self same issue.
The disciplinary proceeding will continue subject to any other or further orders by a competent court. However, in order to dispel all worries and doubts of the employer/petitioners, we direct that instead of allowing the petitioner to continue his service from his present location he may be placed in any other office within Port Blair as a temporary measure, till further decision of the Tribunal in the original application. He will continue to discharge his duty as per his designation and be entitled to the pay attached to the post. This is a temporary arrangement and should not be treated as a transfer of the petitioner. He shall be allowed to perform his duties till the matter is decided by the learned Tribunal. No stigma is attached to this placement. The issue raised by Mr.
date. If the suspension is stayed, the person is to be treated as on duty.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of with the above modification of the order impugned.
This order is restricted to the challenge to the interim order passed in the original application and the original application will be disposed of on its own merits, expeditiously, without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)