The date of suspension itself has to be construed as the effective date of suspension, and a review done beyond a period of 90 days would not serve the purpose of law.

JUDGMENT :

A short question arises for determination in this writ petition which pertains to the date when an order of suspension becomes effective. The said issue is in the context of the requirement to make periodic review which is mandatory.

2. Before going to the issue to be determined, the basic facts of the case in hand may be narrated as follows.

3. The petitioner is posted with the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) on deputation. Pursuant to certain allegations in the discharge of his duties, an order dated 01.11.2022 has been passed by placing the petitioner under suspension. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order of suspension was received by the petitioner on 07.11.2022. The requirement of law to conduct a review within 90 days of the order of suspension was done on 03.02.2023. It is the contention of the petitioner that such review being done beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, the same shall not save the authorities from their responsibility which is mandatory in nature and therefore, the impugned order of suspension is required to be set aside. The contention of the respondents, on the other hand, is that though the date of the order of suspension was 01.11.2022, it was communicated only on 07.11.2022. It is accordingly submitted by the respondents that if the aforesaid date is reckoned, the review done on 03.02.2023 would be within time and therefore, there would be no violation of the law laid down.

4. I have heard Shri D Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri SK Medhi, learned CGC appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Shri RK Talukdar, learned counsel has appeared for the NHIDCL. The materials placed before this Court have been duly perused.

5. Shri Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no manner of doubt that the order of suspension is dated 01.11.2022. Though the same was received by the petitioner on 07.11.2022, the date for the purpose of the mandatory review within 90 days has to be reckoned as 01.11.2022. It is submitted that the suspension takes effect from the date of the order itself i.e., 01.11.2022 and not from the date of receipt of such order. He submits that though the review has been done, the same was done only on 03.02.2023, which is beyond the period of 90 days. He submits that the period of 90 days had expired on 29.01.2023 before which date, no exercise of review was conducted.

6. In support of his submissions, Shri Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following case laws:

i) State of Punjab Vs. Khemi Ram, (1969) 3 SCC 28;

ii) Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291;

iii) Union of India and Other Vs. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222;

7. In the case of State of Punjab ( supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in clear terms laid down that in case of a suspension, the effective date would be the date of the order itself. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said judgement is extracted here in below:

“17. The question then is whether communicating the order means its actual receipt by the concerned government servant. The order of suspension in question was published in the Gazette though that was after the date when the respondent was to retire. But the point is whether it was communicated to him before that date. The ordinary meaning of the word "communicate" is to impart, confer or transmit information. (Cf. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 352). As already stated, telegrams, dated July 31, and August 2, 1958, were despatched to the respondent at the address given by him where communications by Government should be despatched. Both the telegrams transmitted or imparted information to the respondent that he was suspended from service with effect from August 2, 1958. It may be that he actually received them in or about the middle of August 1958, after the date of his retirement. But how can it be said that the infor