1. The question posed for our consideration is whether, after revocation of a suspension order, passing a second suspension order against the Respondent on the same day is permissible or not. Our answer to the question is in the affirmative and in the given facts of the case the second suspension order was validly passed.

2. The Respondent was working as a Naib Tehsildar and it was alleged that she had accepted illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from a complainant. The Anti Corruption Branch of the Delhi Government arrested her and a First Information Report was lodged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the Respondent was in custody for more than 48 hours, she was deemed to be under suspension from 20th October, 2004 the date of her arrest. A formal order of suspension was, however, passed in this regard only on 5th December, 2004

3. In terms of the extant rules, the Respondent”s suspension was required to be reviewed after 90 days from the date of her deemed suspension. Consequently, the review was required to take place before 20th January, 2005 but it was not held. Notwithstanding this, the Respondent continued to be under suspension until her suspension was formally revoked on 2nd May, 2006.

4. In the meanwhile, on 7th March, 2006 a departmental enquiry was initiated against the Respondent for the alleged misconduct. It was only thereafter that on 27th April, 2006 the Review Committee met to consider the Respondent”s suspension and as a result of the deliberations, two orders were passed by the Petitioners on 2nd May, 2006. The first order formally revoked her suspension, since the mandatory statutory review had not taken place within 90 days of her deemed suspension. The second order placed her under suspension for a period of 180 days with immediate effect.

5. The Respondent challenged her second suspension by filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which was registered as OA No.1451 of 2006. By the impugned order dated 5th September, 2007 the Tribunal allowed her Original Application and came to the conclusion that the second suspension order was invalid on merits. However, the Tribunal left it open to the Petitioners to take an appropriate administrative decision with regard to her suspension keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [for short the CCS (CCA) Rules].

6. Two principal reasons were given by the Tribunal for arriving at the conclusion that it did: firstly, there was no additional or fresh material with the Review Committee warranting the Respondent”s second suspension; secondly, the provisions of Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules were not complied with.

7. Before proceeding any further, it is necessary to refer to the Rules upon which the Tribunal placed reliance. They read as under:- “10. Suspension “

(1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx (4) xx xx xx (5) xx xx xx (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of ninety days from the date of order 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 period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be made for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5)(a), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (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.”

8. In so far as the first principal reason given by the Tribunal is concerned, namely, that there was no additional or fr