HC quashes Punjab IGP Umranangal’s suspension, says State can’t pick and choose rules

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma, while allowing the petition by Umranangal said, “The impugned order dated February 1, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No.695 of 2022, the suspension orders dated February 26, 2019, November 20, 2020 and March 22, 2021 and order dated November 20, 2020, are hereby quashed.

The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join the services forthwith.” The Bench after perusing the suspension orders and the Procedure to be followed for suspension of All India Service Officers posted in Ministries/Departments/State Government under AIS (D&A) Rules, 1989, said, “It is revealed that the State Government did not bother to follow the procedure which is mandatory in the case of the petitioner for the reasons best known to the State.”

“It is very unfortunate to observe that on the one hand the petitioner is awarded with two Gallantry Awards for rendering his meritorious service in combating with terrorism in the State of Punjab, but on the other hand the State Government has placed the petitioner under suspension since February 18, 2019 till date which is for a period of almost five years without following any procedure, without any extension, without any recommendation of Central Review Committee, without any confirmation by the Central Government, which casts a doubt on the intention of the officers who are passing the suspension orders one after the other”, asserted the Bench.

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter he was inducted to Indian Police Service in 1995. On October 13, 2015 certain protestors assembled at Kotkapura after hearing about the sacrilege of Shri Guru Granth Sahib. It was told to HC that on October 14, 2015, on the orders of State Government, the police gathered around the protesters and tried to disperse them by using mild lathi charge and water cannons.

The protest turned violent and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was constrained to open fire in the air, during which a protestor got shot in his thigh. A Commission of Inquiry was constituted to inquire into the incident.

Thus three suspension orders were issued to Umranangal, following the FIRs registered in the matter. Umranangal then moved CAT seeking quashing of the suspension orders, where his plea was dismissed. He then moved HC against the order of CAT.

At HC, Umranangal through counsels Senior Advocate DS Patwalia, with Advocates GS Patwalia and SS Saron submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that Rule 3 was amended by way of a notification dated December 21, 2015 wherein a suspension order is made subject to two riders; firstly, it is only valid for a period of 30 days, further extension of 30 days requires confirmation by the Central Government, which has not been done in the present case for any of the suspension orders.

And secondly, an order of suspension which has been confirmed by the Central Government is valid only for a cumulative period of 60 days and further extension of the same can only be made under the recommendations of the concerned Review Committee, which has not been done in the present case for any of the suspension orders.

The State counsel argued that the suspension orders were passed in the first case initially with reference to Rule 3(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, but thereafter, vide order dated November 20, 2020, Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 was invoked and the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from February 18, 2019.