JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh has challenged the validity of the order of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal which allowed the petition of the respondent and revoked his suspension order with a direction to reinstate him with full salary from October 6, 1988.

3. The matter arises in this way :

The respondent was an Assistant Labour Officer. He was trapped by Anti-Corruption Bureau for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 300/- for doing an official favour to a bus operator of Nellore District. The Anti Corruption Bureau submitted a report to the Labour Commissioner about the involvement of the respondent in the corruption charges. On 21 March, 1988, the Commissioner placed the respondent under suspension under R. 13(l) of the A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules pending investigation of the case. The respondent challenged the order of suspension before A.P. Administrative Tribunal in Representation Petition No. 2161 of 1988. On 31 October 1988, the Tribunal without disturbing the suspension order directed the Government to review the case of respondent as per rules. On 6 December 1988, the Government reviewed the case of respondent and issued an order extending his suspension. Earlier to that on 23 August, 1988, the Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted its final report to the Government seeking permission to prosecute the respondent. On 2 November 1988 the sanction was accorded. On 15 February 1989, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent in the Special Court at Hyderabad and the same is pending trial. In the meantime the respondent moved the A.P. Administrative Tribunal under Representation Petition No. 7329 of 1988 seeking revocation of the suspension order and claiming full salary from 6 October 1988. The Tribunal by the judgment dated 31 March 1989 which is impugned in this appeal has allowed that petition. The operation portion of the order reads :

"In the result, R.P. is allowed. The impugned order of suspension is revoked pending filling of the charge-sheet and trial in the competent Court. However, it is open for the respondent to transfer the petitioner to any non-focal post. CMP No. 12 of 1989 seeks for a direction to the respondent to pay the full salary from 6-10-1988 on the ground that there is no extension of suspension order. As I have already held that no valid orders extending the suspension orders were issued beyond 6-10-1988, he shall be deemed to be in service, as such, he is entitled for the salary from 6-10-1988 onwards."

4. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that the suspension order dated 21 March 1988 was served on him on 6 April 1988 and it could be operative only for 6 months i.e. up to 6 October 1988. The Government has not reviewed his suspension nor continued by a fresh order and as such he should be deemed to be in service from 6 October 1988. The Tribunal has accepted that case with an observation :

"Failure on the part of the Government to review the order within six months period as required under Instruction 18 in Appendix VI to the A.P.C.A. (CCA) Rules rendered the suspension order non est after six months. The Government has limited powers to extend the suspension period but that has to be done during the period of suspension being in force and any order issued subsequent to the expiry of six months cannot have retrospective effect since the rule does not permit for extending suspension with retrospective effect."

Before us, counsel for the State contended and in our opinion very rightly that the view taken by the Tribunal is plainly erroneous and unsustainable. First, the Government instructions on which the Tribunal rested its conclusion, do not seem to have any statutory force; second the order of suspension after a period of six months would not become non est giving an automatic right to reinstatement in service. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law conferring such right on a Government servant w