A suspension order cannot remain valid beyond 90 days unless timely review extends it, and extensions must occur within the extended period (up to 180 days); invalid extensions lead to quashing of the order and entitlement to consequential benefits.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 , praying for the following relief(s) highlighting the facts of the case:

(a) quash and set aside Second Suspension Extension Order dated 01.12.2023:

(b) declare that the suspension of the applicant has already become invalid wef 07.08.2023 due to non-review of suspension order within 90 days from First Suspension Extension Order dated 09.05.2023:

(c) reinstate the applicant to his post wef 07.08.2023 or from appropriate date as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit as per Law, with all consequential benefits;

(d) award costs of the proceedings; and (e) pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Applicant was posted as Deputy Assistant Coal Controller (DACC) in Coal Controller’s Organization (CCO), Ministry of Coal. The applicant was suspended under Rule 10(1)(a) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 vide Order dated 09.02.2023 with immediate effect. Applicant challenged the aforesaid order of suspension and for the release of Subsistence Allowance before this Hon’ble Tribunal vide O.A. No. 394/2023, which is still pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal. During the pendency of aforesaid O.A. No. 394/2023, the suspension of the applicant was extended by the respondents for a period of 180 days w.e.f. 09.05.2023 vide First Suspension Extension Order dated 09.05.2023. Respondents have issued Second Suspension Extension Order dated 01.12.2023 extending the period of suspension by another 180 days by giving its effect retrospectively from 04.11.2023 on the recommendation of Review Committee dated 09.11.2023.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules itself makes it explicit that the earlier order of suspension shall not be valid after period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. Therefore, the first Suspension Extension Order dated 09.05.2023 as well as the Suspension Order dated 09.02.2023 are invalid after 06.08.2023 i.e. w.e.f. 07.08.2023. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the order extending the period of suspension has been issued on 01.12.2023 i.e. after 117 days from 06.08.2023. The review committee failed to pass any order of extension as provided in Rule 10(6) within 90 days from First Suspension Extension Order dated 09.05.2023, inasmuch as, no order within the period of First Suspension Extension Order was sent to the applicant within 90 days from 09.05.2023. As a result, the suspension order dated 09.02.2023 came to an end on 06.08.2023 as provided in Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that CAT Principal Bench in case of Daney Kumar Vs. Medical Council of India reported in MANU/CA/0649/2014 has held after interpreting sub-rule (6) and sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) 1965 that:

“8. …The provision of sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules itself makes it explicit that the earlier order of suspension shall not be valid after period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period before the expiry of ninety days…”

Hon'ble High Court of Tripura dated 01.12.2022 in Review Petn. No. 66/2022 in case of The State of Tripura & Ors Vs Sri Saumitra Chakma has also held that:

“13. The aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble apex court as well as the provisions of sub-rule (5) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1065 makes it abundantly clear that any order extending the suspension period