The command for timely reviews of suspension under the CCS (CCA) Rules is mandatory to ensure lawful extensions beyond the initial period.

JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

Being aggrieved by the impugned Annexure-A2 order dated 25.02.2016, Annexure-A3 order dated 09.05.2016 and Annexure-A4 order dated 05.08.2016, extending the original suspension order as per Annexure-A1 dated 11.11.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent, in exercise of the powers under Sub-rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the respondent herein had filed the instant Ext.P1 original application, O.A.No.911 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench with the following prayers [see page No.19 of the paper book of this O.P.]:

“(i) To declare that Annexure A2 t0 Annexure A4 orders are illegal and inoperative and the Applicant will stand deemed to have been reinstated back to service with effect from 10/02/2016 with all consequential benefits and arrears of pay.

(ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the Applicant back to service with effect from 10/02/2016 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and (iv) Grant the cost of this Original Application.”

2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered Ext.P2 final order dated 05.12.2016 in the instant O.A.No.911 of 2016, whereby it has been found that the impugned Annexures-A2 to A4 extension orders of the suspension are liable for judicial interdiction and thus the Tribunal as per Ext.P2 has directed R3 in the O.A. (Superintendent of Post Offices), to reinstate the applicant in service with effect from 10.02.2016 and to give her arrears of pay, during the period of suspension, within three months and that she may be posted in a post office other than the one in which the alleged fraud has been committed, etc. It is aggrieved by Ext.P2 final verdict of the Tribunal in the instant O.A that, the respondents in the said O.A have preferred the instant Original Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer [see page No.8 of the paper book of this O.P.]:

“For these and other reasons to be submitted at the time of hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records and set-aside Ext.P2 -Order in O.A.No.180/00911/2016, dated 05.12.2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in the interest of justice.”

3. Heard Sri.T.V.Vinu, the learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./respondents in the O.A. and Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the O.P./applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal.

4. As indicated hereinabove, the respondent herein/applicant was initially ordered to be suspended from service as per Annexure-A1 order dated 11.11.2015 issued by R3 in the O.A (Superintendent of Post Offices). Thereafter the currency of Annexure-A1 order was extended for further periods as per Annexures-A2, A3 & A4, by exercise of the powers under Sub-rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The applicant challenged the extension of the suspension order as per Annexures-A2 to A4 by the above O.A. The operative portion of the directions and orders rendered by the Tribunal in Ext.P2 final order in O.A.No.911 of

2016 are contained in para No.5 thereof, which reads as follows:

“5. Without making any observations on the seriousness of the fraud committed or the loss to the public exchequer or to the holders of Recurring Deposit Account, we note that Government of India has on 3.7.2015 passed orders curtailing the suspension of officials beyond 90 days. We also note that the Apex Court in Ajayakumar Vs. Union of India 2015 (7) SCC 291 has not quashed the CCS (CCA) Rules 10 on extension of suspension beyond 90 days. Hence the operation of Rule 10 continues. However, we note that the applicant's extension of suspension was issued on 25.2.2016 beyond 90 days period of suspension ordered on 11.11.2015. Hence respondents failed to issue the extension of suspension