Point of Law : Service Law - Suspension order - An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by authority competent to modify or revoke suspension, before expiry of ninety days from effective date of suspension, on recommendation of Review Committee constituted for purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking suspension.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 04.02.2021. The appellant is, essentially, aggrieved by the directions given in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter:

“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.”

2. The backdrop, in which the impugned judgment came to be passed, is briefly set forth hereunder.

2.1. The respondent, who was the Director, Export Inspection Council, New Delhi was placed under suspension, vide office order dated 05.04.2019.

2.2. The record reveals that the Review Committee constituted by the appellant at its meeting held on 15.07.2019 recommended that the respondent’s suspension be extended. This decision though was taken after 90 days had expired from the date when the respondent was first placed under suspension. To be noted, it is not in dispute that, the 90 days period expired on 03.07.2019.

2.3. It is also not in dispute that, the respondent received intimation concerning extension of the suspension order dated 05.04.2019, via communication dated 29.07.2019; that is, after 116 days had expired from the date of the suspension order. It is on this basis that, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The learned Single Judge, as noticed hereinabove, allowed the writ petition and quashed the suspension order dated 05.04.2019 on the ground that, it had not been reviewed for the purpose of extension before the expiry of the 90 days period, as provided in Rules 10(6) and 10(7),“10. SUSPENSION

XXX

XXX

(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 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.” of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [in short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965’].

3.1. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge in reaching this conclusion also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Deepak Mali (2010) 2 SCC 222.

4. Ms. Arti Bansal, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge [after quashing the suspension order dated 05.04.2019], to the effect, that