O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Ms. Jasmine Ahmed, Member-J Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri V.S. Sisodiya, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant while working as SPM in the Sub Post Office, Semariyawan, Basti was placed under suspension by respondent No. 3 in exercise of power under sub rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is the contention of Counsel for the applicant that the suspension order had to be reviewed within 90 days from the date of passing the order and after reviewing the same, the authority should have passed an appropriate order regarding continuation or revocation of suspension order. Counsel for the applicant stated that the respondents did not review the order within 90 days nor the competent authority passed any order within 90 days from the date of suspension, accordingly, in view of the well settled law, the suspension order against the applicant deemed to be revoked after completion of 90 days in terms of sub rules 6 and 7 of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Counsel for the applicant relied on the Order passed in O.A. No. 1210 of 2015 Kishore Kumar Dubey v. Union of India and others wherein the applicant who was working as Postal Assistant in Sub Post Office, Daldala, Siddhartha Nagar was also put under suspension vide order dated 21.01.2015 by the respondents, therein, exercising the same provisions of law. The O.A. No. 1210 of 2015 was filed challenging the suspension order dated 21.01.2015 as it was neither reviewed within 90 days by the Reviewing Authority nor the competent authority passed any order within 90 days from the date of suspension. Hence, taking into consideration the settled position of law, this Tribunal by a detailed order directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant. The Order of this Tribunal was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad by way of Writ Petition No. 69086 of 2015 and on

18.01.2016 by a detailed order the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the Order of this Tribunal. Counsel for the applicant stated that the same situation is also in the present O.A. as the applicant was put under suspension on 24.06.2014 and it has been reviewed only by the impugned order on 14.06.2016 which is almost after two years. In between the suspension order dated 24.06.2014 was never reviewed nor communicated by the respondents to the applicant.

3. Mr. V.S. Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant has handed over some documents through which he wants to show that the suspension order dated 24.06.2014 was reviewed earlier. However, on perusal, it reveals that the same was nowhere marked to the applicant nor it was communicated by the respondents to the applicant. Hence, we feel that the statement given by Counsel for the respondents that the suspension order dated 24.06.2014 was reviewed, does not hold good.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.

5. Through the present O.A., the applicant is challenging the impugned order dated 14.06.2016 and the suspension order dated 24.06.2016. The impugned order, reads as under: -

“Shri Chandra Bali Yadav SPM Semariyawan was placed under suspension vide Memo No. F/Inv/Semariyawan/2014 dated 24.06.2014 and as per provision of sub rule 6 of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the suspension case of said Shri Chandra Bali Yadav has been reviewed by the Suspension Review Committee and keeping in view the grave misconduct, the committee has ordered for continuation of suspension for further period of ninety days with effect from 13.06.2016. The Committee did not find any justification in respect of enhancement of subsistence allowance.”

The aforesaid order was signed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Basti Division, Basti. A bare reading of the impugned order dated 14.06.2016 clearly reveals that the suspension order dated 24.06.2014 has never been reviewed as if the same has been revi