1. Petitioner, an employee of the Defence Estates Organization, was working as SDO-I in the said Organization in its office at Rajouri. Disciplinary proceedings were pending against him pertaining to the date of the occupation of land measuring round about 921 kanals 15 marlas by Vector Force at Awantipura. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings were also contemplated against him in connection with:

Issuance of NOC regarding defence land at Srinagar.

2. The petitioner, vide order No. 15/ 226 / ADM /DE/ NC/Conf/2 dated 3rd of October, 2011, was placed under suspension.

3. The requirement of Rule 10 Sub-rule 6 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules hereinafter referred to as `CCS Rules' is that for extending the period of suspension, the order of suspension has to be reviewed before its expiry by the competent authority on the recommendation of the Review Committee.

4. Initial period of suspension expired on 31.12.2011 but before its expiry, the Review Committee recommended the extension, as a result thereof, vide order No. 15/226/ADM/DE/NC/Conf/2 dated 20.12.2011, the period of suspension was extended for a further period of 180 days with effect from 1st January, 2012 which expired on June 28, 2012. On 3rd of August, 2012, on the basis of the recommendations of the Review Committee, period of suspension was extended for a further period of 180 days with retrospective effect, i.e., from 29th June, 2012.

5. During the course of arguments, it was particularly projected by learned counsel for the petitioner that the extension vide order dated 3rd of August, 2012 with retrospective effect will not validate the order of suspension which became invalid with effect from 29th June, 2012. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Union of India and ors. v. Dipak Mali, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 222.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Jamwal highlighted that before the expiry of initial 90 days of suspension, case has to be reviewed by the Review Committee, based on such review, extension is to be granted. In the instant case, before the expiry of 90 days, the Review Committee, on reviewing the case of the petitioner, recommended extension and vide order dated 30.12.2012 period of suspension was extended for a further period of 180 days with effect from 1st January, 2012. In short, according to Mr. Jamwal, subsequent extensions in suspension period is permissible even after expiry of the earlier period.

7. On thoughtful consideration of the submissions, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has substance, as such prevails.

8. Part-IV of CCS Rules pertains to suspension. Rule 10 Sub-Rule (5) provides that when an order of suspension is made or deemed to have been made under rules, same shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the competent authority. It further provides that the competent authority has the power to direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that suspension shall continue until the termination of all or any of such proceedings. Sub-Rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 controls operation of Sub-rule 5, which, for facility of reference, are quoted herein:-

"6. An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of ninety days from the date of order 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 suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. (emphasis supplied)

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be val

Click Here to Read the rest of this document