JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel as well as Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, representing State respondents, assisted by Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Govt. Advocate.

2. The writ petitioner, who was working as the Chief Executive Officer, Smart City Development Corporation Limited, Pasighat, East Siang District was put under suspension under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 by an order, dated 10.11.2018, issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar on 13.11.2018, vide Memo. No. DTP/SC- 02/2017-18, annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, contemplated/pending a disciplinary proceeding.

3. The writ petitioner by relying on Sub-Rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 contends that if the respondent authorities wanted the writ petitioner to be under further suspension, it ought to have extended the suspension of the writ petitioner by issuing a fresh order within a period of 90 days from the last date of suspension order. According to the writ petitioner, if the date of the order of suspension is taken to be the 10.11.2018, the 90 days will expire on 07.02.2019 and if the order of suspension is taken to be issued on 13.11.2018, the period of 90 days expires on 10.02.2019. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that the respondent authorities having not issued further order of suspension of the writ petitioner, either before 07.02.2019 or 10.02.2019, the earlier order of suspension issued would be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Sub-Rule 7 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

4. An affidavit-in-opposition have been filed by the State respondents, wherein it has been contended that the decision to put the writ petitioner under further suspension was taken on 04.02.2019 by the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and in pursuance of the decision taken on 04.02.2019, an order dated 12.02.2019 was issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh putting the writ petitioner under further suspension for 180 days.

5. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner by referring to Sub-Rules 6 & 7 of the Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 submits that the authorities are required to take a fresh decision within the stipulated period of 90 days and pass necessary orders in order to put the suspended officials under further suspension.

6. In the instant case, Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities having failed to comply with the requirement of Sub-Rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the writ petitioner cannot be put under further suspension and, therefore the earlier order of suspension, dated 10.11.2018 would be deemed to have lapsed in view of Sub-Rule 7 of the Rule 10 of the of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and accordingly, the writ petitioner is liable to be reinstated in the service with immediate effect.

7. On the other hand, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General representing State respondents submits that an order of suspension was issued on 10.11.2018, and accordingly 90 days would expire on 10.02.2019. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the period of 90 days provided under Sub- Rule 6 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is the date of the decision of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and not the date of the issue of the order putting the employees under further suspension. He further submits that, as the Review Committee constituted for the purpose took the decisi