JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the original applicant.

2. Petitioner-Union of India/Department of Post Office, by the instant writ petition, is challenging the order dated 10 November 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (Tribunal), whereby, the impugned suspension order before the Tribunal suspending the first respondent came to be set aside for the reason that Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (Rules 1965), was not complied. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

"24. Since the suspension order passed on 25.11.2019 was not extended within the expiry of 90 days by way of a formal order thus clearly contradicting the laid down procedures under Rule 6 and 7 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, subsequent extension of the suspension order after expiry of the 90 days will not validate it as mere issuing of minutes of the review meeting cannot be treated as a formal order of the extension of suspension order passed at initial state. For this simple reason and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court as have been quoted hereinabove and comparing the same with the facts and circumstances of the present matter, I am of the view that plea taken by the applicant is liable to be allowed.

25. Accordingly, the instant original application is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 is set aside. Respondents are further directed to reinstate the applicant to his original duties as he was discharging prior to the suspension order dated 25.11.2019 issued against him along with all consequential benefits as per the established rules and procedures."

3. The respondent employee/original applicant was working as a Postal Assistant, he came to be suspended vide order dated 25 November 2009, passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi. Rule 10 of Rules 1965, provides for suspension by the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any authority empowered in that behalf by general or special order.

4. Sub-rule (6), incorporated on 3 January 2004, provides that the 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.

5. The competent authority is required to pass an order on the recommendation of the Review Committee either extending or revoking the suspension. The Rule further provides extension of suspension, however, suspension shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time. Sub-rule (7) further provides that suspension made under the Rule shall not be valid after period of ninety days, unless it is extended after review.

6. Sub-rule (6) and (7) of Rule 10 is extracted:

"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 of exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.

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 valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days."

7. The learned Tribunal after perusal of the record was of the opinion that the mandate of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 was not complied as the order of su