Dr S K Saxena v. Union of India

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: i) issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby quashing the office order dated April 05, 2019 regarding suspension of the Petitioner and Office orders dated July 29, 2019; November 07, 2019; January 31, 2019 and June 02, 2020 regarding extension of suspension of the Petitioner; ii) issue an Order or Direction, thereby directing the Respondent to revoke the suspension of the Petitioner vide order dated April 05, 2019, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play or in the alternative revoke the same after a completion of 90 days from the date of suspension and treat the suspension period as the Petitioner being on duty with full pay and allowances; 2021:DHC:406 W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 2/5 iii) issue an Order or Direction to the Respondent to expedite the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and complete the same in a time bound manner; iv) award costs;

(v) pass any such further or other Orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances hereof.

2. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that suspension of the petitioner vide office order dated April 05, 2019 is illegal as the same has not been reviewed by the respondent in accordance with Rule 10 (6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and as such Rule 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules shall have the effect.

3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the suspension order though passed on April 05, 2019, the same was required to be reviewed before the expiry of 90 days by the competent authority. In the case in hand, the review, as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, was done on July 15, 2019 whereas 90 days period had expired on July 03, 2019 and it was only on July 29, 2019, the order of extending the suspension was issued and in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Deepak Mali (2010) 2 SCC 222, the suspension is bad. He also states, initial review of the suspension being not in accordance with Rule 10 (6), Rule 10 (7) will come into effect and even the subsequent orders of extending the suspension are also bad. W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 3/5

4. In the Counter-affidavit of the respondent in Para 8 & 9, the following has been stated:

5. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules as under: “10.

SUSPENSION XXXXX XXXXX (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 4/5 period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. (7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days: Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later.”

6. From perusal of the same it is clear that the suspension order has to be reviewed before the expiry of 90 days. In other words, the suspension order having been passed on April 05, 2019, the same was required to be reviewed on or before July 04,

2019. Concedingly, the suspension was reviewed by the Review Committee only on July 15, 2019 and the decision thereof was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated July 29, 2019. Surely, both the events have happened after July 04, 2019 and as such Rule 10 (7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules shall come into play and the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. Deepak Mali (supra), shall be applicable in the facts of this case. The relevant paragraph in the aforesaid Judgment being Paragraph 11, is reproduced as under: W.P.(C) 5285/2020 Page 5/5

7. If the first review has not been carried out before the expiry of 90 days, the order of suspension dated April 05, 2019 shall become invalid and as such the subsequent orders of continuance of suspension of the petitioner shall also become invalid. Accordingly, the suspension order dated April 05, 2019 being invalid it is quashed, the petitioner is entitled to claim continuity in service and salary for the period from the date of suspension till reinstatement subject to adjustment of suspension allowance paid to the petitioner during this period. The petition is allowed and disposed of. CM APPL. 19057/2020 Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

FEBRUARY 04, 2021