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.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--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