Back
SHEEL NAGU, DWARKADHISH BANSAL
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Purushottam – Respondent
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 :--
| S. No. | Date | Events |
| 1 | 28.9.2020 | Show cause notice issued to the respondent No.1 as to why his services be not placed under suspension. |
| 2 | 29.9.2020 | Respondent No.1 refutting allegations made in the show cause notice filed reply. |
| 3 | 29.9.2020 | Govt. of M.P. place the respondent No.1 under suspension by invoking Rule 3(1) of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for |
Suspension valid if reviewed by Committee before 90 days expiry even if formal order issued shortly after; identical provisions in CCS Rules and ESIC Regulations; competent authority includes Discipl....
Suspension ceases after 90 days unless extended by competent authority's order before expiry; committee review alone insufficient, rendering post-90-day continuation illegal.
Suspension orders requiring review must be executed within 90 days, and failure to serve charges timely invalidates extensions beyond this period.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and court judgments, and failure to do so renders the sus....
An effective order of suspension must be communicated to the affected party; mere file notings do not suffice.
Deemed suspension lapses automatically after 90 days if not reviewed and extended before expiry, when employee released from detention prior thereto; proviso to Rule 10(7) inapplicable. Subsequent ex....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
