JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 20.10.2011 contending inter-alia that this continuing suspension not only amounts to penalising the petitioner but is also contrary to Rule 10 (7) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that the provisions of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 are applicable in the State of Manipur and it is by invoking Rule 10(2) of the aforesaid Rules that the petitioner had been placed under suspension w.e.f. 03.10.2011 after the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR case. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State, this Court will proceed with the presumption that the various Rules under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are applicable in the State also.

4. The suspension of the petitioner was made after she was detained in custody in connection with FIR Case No. 157(10)2011 under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34-IPC of Lamphel Police Station as permissible under Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Sub-rule 5(a) of Rule 10 provides that subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7), any order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. In other words, the suspension order dated 20.10.2011 issued in respect of the petitioner would continue to remain in force till it is modified or revoked by the authority which issues the suspension order.

In the present case, no such order has been issued by the competent authority revoking or modifying the said suspension order. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass order either extending or revoking the suspension and subsequent review shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension and extension of suspension shall not be made for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.

Sub-rule (7) further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before expiry of ninety days.

5. The petitioner submits that in the present case no such review was undertaken by the competent authority before the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. It has been submitted that in fact, till date, no such review had been made and since there was no review of the order of suspension, this suspension order dated 20.10.2011 cannot be sustained in terms of sub rule (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Mr. Tamphamani, learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that continuation of the aforesaid suspension order dated 20.10.2011 is not permissible and accordingly liable to be set aside.

It is because of this reason that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for setting aside the aforesaid suspension order on the ground that no review had been made in respect of the said suspension order as provided under sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the Rules and it has been specifically provided under sub-rule (7) that an order of suspension shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended after a review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days.

6. Mr. Tamphamani, learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Union of India Vs. Dipak Mali reported in (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document