IMPORTANT POINT
The extension of suspension orders without the recommendation of the Review Committee and failure to extend the suspension within the prescribed period rendered the suspension orders invalid.

JUDGMENT

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the suspension order dated 25.2.2020 and its subsequent extension orders dated 23.5.2020 and 22.8.2020, respectively, and to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners to their former posts.

2. Since the suspension orders impugned and the grounds for challenge are one and the same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order, albeit they have been reserved on 27.10.2021 and 28.10.2021, respectively.

3. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.688 of 2021 is that while he was working as Deputy Director Tribal Affairs & Hills, he was placed under suspension on 25.2.2020 and subsequently on 23.5.2020, the suspension was extended for three months with effect from 25.5.2020 and, again, on 22.8.2020 the said order of suspension was extended for three months. Such extension expired in the month of November, 2020. According to the petitioner, if further extension is required, it should be made before expiry of the extension that is before the month of November, 2020. Since the extension was not made before the expiry of the earlier extended period, no further extension can now be made violating Rule 10(6) and (7) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the continuation of the impugned suspension order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Similarly, the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.379 of 2021 is that while he was serving as Joint Director of Directorate of Tribal Affairs & Hills, he was placed under suspension by invoking the proviso to sub-rule (1) (a) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 25.2.2020. Thereafter, his suspension was extended for another three months with effect from 25.5.2020 on the recommendation of the Review Committee of the Department and again, the same was extended for another three months or for a period till his revocation whichever is earlier vide order dated 22.8.2020. According to the petitioner, every order of suspension has to be reviewed by the competent authority to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of the Review Committee. The specific case of the petitioner is that unless the order of suspension is revoked or extended for further period by issuing necessary order on the recommendation of the Review Committee within 90 days as provided under sub-rule (6) of Rule 10, such order of suspension ceases to exist after expiry of 90 days as provided under sub-rule (7) of Rule 10. In the case of the petitioner, the said period of 90 days expired on 20.11.2020 and as such, the impugned order of suspension ceases to exist with effect from 21.11.2020 as the order of suspension has neither been reviewed nor revoked thereafter. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has not been allowed to enjoy the subsistence allowance since his suspension.

5. The respondents in W.P.No.379 of 2021 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that in connection with the withdrawal of money, a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has been contemplated and he has been kept under suspension vide order dated 25.2.2020 and thereafter, vide order dated 10.6.2020, articles of charges were framed in connection with the misappropriation of Rs.29,67,61,143/- belonging to Tribal Affairs and Hills Department. During the course of departmental proceedings, on 16.5.2020, in order to review the suspension, a Review Committee was constituted and on the recommendation of the Review Committee, the suspension period of the petitioner was extended for another period of three months. By the subsequent order dated 22.8.2020, the suspension period was again extended for another three months or till revocation whichever is earlier. As such, the suspension order of the petitioner was extended till the revocation of the same.

6. It is stated in the affidavit-in