IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
S.K. Saxena - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5285 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous No. 19057 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2021
Suspension - Review of Suspension Orders - CCS (CCA) Rules - Rule 10(6) and 10(7) - Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Deepak Mali (2010) 2 SCC 222
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash the suspension order and subsequent extensions, citing non-compliance with Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The respondent had suspended the petitioner and extended the suspension without timely review, leading to the petitioner's claim for continuity in service and salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension order dated April 05, 2019 became invalid due to lack of timely review, as per Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The subsequent orders of suspension were also deemed invalid. Consequently, the suspension order was quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to continuity in service and salary for the period of suspension.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the suspension order and subsequent extensions in light of non-compliance with Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which mandate the review of suspension orders before the expiry of 90 days. The court also referenced the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Deepak Mali (2010) 2 SCC 222, which emphasized the invalidity of a suspension order if not reviewed within 90 days.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the suspension order dated April 05, 2019 was quashed. The petitioner was granted continuity in service and salary for the period of suspension, subject to adjustment of suspension allowance paid.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - 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;
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.
4. In the Counter-affidavit of the respondent in Para 8 & 9, the following has been stated:
8. That in view of the above facts revealing prima facie a serious lack of integrity on the part of petitioner, major penalty proceedings are contemplated against the Petitioner and in the public interest the Department of Commerce placed the Petitioner under Suspension w.e.f 05.04.2019 and attached him with the office of Additional Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Central Licensing Area (CLA), New Delhi. A copy of suspension order dated 05.04.2019 is annexed as Annexure R/4. The second show cause notice was replied by Dr. S.K. Saxena on 10.04.2019 and same is annexed as Annexure R/5.
9. That the Review Committee held on 15.07.2019 considered the suspension case of the Petitioner and recommended that the suspension of the Petitioner should be extended till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against him or further orders, whichever is earlier, which was conveyed to him on 29.07.2019. A copy of letter dated 29.07.2019 is annexed as Annexure R/6.
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 period of suspension. Extension of
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely review of suspension orders as per Rule 10(6) and 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and the consequent invalidity of susp....
The failure to review a suspension order within 90 days invalidates the order and subsequent extension, creating a precedent for procedural compliance in disciplinary actions.
Suspension under CCS(CCA) Rules lapses if not reviewed before 90 days expiry; subsequent extensions cannot revive invalid order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and court judgments, and failure to do so renders the sus....
Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.
Suspension ceases after 90 days unless extended by competent authority's order before expiry; committee review alone insufficient, rendering post-90-day continuation illegal.
Suspension orders exceeding the statutory timeframe without proper extensions or charges are invalid under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.
The suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, and the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
The central legal point established is the requirement for timely review and extension of suspension orders as per Rule 10(6) and (7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.