A suspension order becomes invalid if not reviewed within 90 days as per CCS (CCA) Rules, entitling the respondent to continuity in service and salary from the dissolution date.

JUDGMENT

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

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement 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 judgement 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)¹ 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 judgement 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 the respondent would be entitled to continuity in service, and salary for the period commencing from the date of the suspension till reinstatement, subject to adjustment of suspension allowance paid during the period of suspension, was both problematic and erroneous in law.

4.1. Ms. Bansal says that, a careful perusal of the relevant rule would show that the respondent was not entitled to any salary [save and except subsistence allowance] till the suspension order was valid, i.e., for the first 90 days.

4.2. It is also Ms. Bansal's contention that, the reinstatement of the respondent would hamper the enquiry, which is, being initiated against him.

4.3. Ms. Bansal says that, the respondent was holding a post [i.e. that of a Director] to which if he is reinstated, as directed by the learned Single judge, it could result in the outcome of the enquiry being influenced by the respondent.

5. Mr. Siddharth Dias, who appears on behalf of the respondent, says that, if a direction is issued by this Court, to the effect, that the enquiry will be concluded at the earliest, it would lay at rest the apprehensions of the appellant.

5.1. Mr. Dias also says, to allay the fears of the appellant, that with the reinstate ment of the respondent, the enquiry could get compromised-