ORDER

Nagu, J. -- 1. This petition invoking writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 r/w Article 227 of the Constitution, assails the legality and validity of final order dated 5.5.2022 passed in OA. No.200/514/2020 by Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal allowing said OA of respondent No.1 quashed the order of suspension and also the subsequently passed orders of extension of period of suspension.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties were heard on the question of admission so also final disposal.

3. Facts in nutshell are reproduced below in a tabular form chronologically :--

4. The Tribunal while allowing the said OA found that before expiry of initial period of suspension of 60 days, no Review Committee as per rule 3(8)(c) was held, and therefore, extension of suspension period beyond 60 days made by State Government by order dated 25.11.2020 was without recommendation of Review Committee, and thus, non est in the eyes of law. Resultantly, Tribunal quashed the order of suspension and all the subsequent orders extending period of suspension.

5. The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/State in this petition is that the Review Committee is not required to be consulted at the stage of first extension beyond initial period of suspension of 60 days. It is further urged by State that Review Committee’s jurisdiction commences at the stage of all subsequent extensions and not at the stage of first extension. By referring to the terminology used in rule 3(8)(a) of Rules of 1969, it is contended that since the order of suspension dated 29.9.2020 was extended by the Competent Authority before expiry of initial period of 60 days and later by the Review Committee on 11.12.2020 for the period beyond 27.1.2021, the order of suspension dated 29.9.2020 did not lapse automatically after expiry of 60 days. It is also submitted that Rule 3(8) (a) while prescribing the initial period of suspension as 60 days excludes from its operation and sweep, cases where suspension order is extended once by the State Government.

6. Pertinently, the pleadings submitted by the State before the Tribunal by way of two replies reveal that Review Committee was not consulted by the Competent Authority when first order dated 25.11.2020 was passed for extending period of suspension beyond initial period of 60 days which was expiring on 27.11.2020. State, thus, admits that recommendations of Review Committee were obtained by the Competent Authority for the purpose of second extension w.e.f. 27.01.2021, but not for the first extension beyond the initial period of 60 days.

6.1 Thus, questions which beg for an answer herein are :--

(a) Whether initial period of suspension o