The validity of suspension orders under Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and the interpretation that after the lapse of ninety days from the date of the original suspension order, the suspension comes to an end, and reinstatement is to be made in accordance with the law.

P. JYOTHIMANI, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.2.2012 dismissing the Review Application filed by the petitioners herein to review an earlier order dated 4.11.2011 passed in O.A.No.962 of 2011.

2. The second respondent was placed under suspension by an order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the second petitioner herein. As per Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, "the Rules"), which is as follows:

"Rule 10(7). An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.

Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub0rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days' period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later.", an order of suspension shall not be valid after a period of ninety days, unless it is extended after review. Therefore, as per the statutory rules, the order of suspension becomes invalid after ninety days from the date of suspension, to wit after 12.10.2011. The petitioners have passed an order of revocation on 14.11.2011, revoking the suspension of the second respondent with effect from 13.10.2011.

3. In the Original Application filed by the second respondent challenging the order of suspension on the ground that after lapse of ninety days as per the Rules the suspension order becomes invalid and the second respondent ought to have been reinstated, the Tribunal has quashed the order of suspension dated 14.7.2011 and directed the second respondent to be reinstated forthwith.

4. In the Review Application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, while confirming the order passed in the Original Application, has held that there is no scope for review since there is no error apparent on the face of the order passed in the Original Application.

5. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that while it is true that as per Rule 10(7) of the Rules, extracted above, after the period of ninety days if there was no review made by the authority the order of suspension becomes invalid, that invalidity will be operative after the period of ninety days, whereas under the order of the Tribunal which was sought to be reviewed, the Tribunal has chosen to quash the order of suspension itself, which means that the suspension would be deemed to be invalid from the date of the order dated 14.7.2011 and that is not the purport of Rule 10(7) of the Rules.

6. On the other hand, Mr.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that inasmuch as in the Review Application the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that there is no error apparent on the face of the records, this Court, by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the validity or otherwise of any of the terms of the original order passed by the Tribunal.

7. On a reference to the original order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that even though it has been the case of the second respondent throughout by relying on Rule 10 (7) of the Rules that after the period of ninety days from the date of the original order of suspension if no review was made the order of suspension becomes invalid after ninety days, the Tribunal has simply quashed the order dated 14.7.2011, which, in our considered view, as correctly submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, would go back to the