This petition invoking writ as well as supervisory jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 r/w Article 227 of the Constitution, assails

the legality and validity of final order dated 05.05.2022 passed in OA.

No.200/514/2020 by Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal

whereby the Tribunal allowing said OA of respondent No.1 quashed the

order of suspension and also the subsequently passed orders of extension

of period of suspension.

Learned counsel for the rival parties were heard on the question of

admission so also final disposal.

3.

Facts in nutshell are reproduced below in a tabular form

chronologically:-

S. No.

Date

Events

1

28.09.2020

Show cause notice issued to the respondent No.1

as to why his services be not placed under

suspension.

2

29.09.2020

Respondent No.1 refutting allegations made in

the show cause notice filed reply.

- 3 -

3

29.09.2020

Govt. of M.P. place the respondent No.1 under

suspension by invoking Rule 3(1) of All India

Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for

brevity “Rules of 1969”) on the ground of

contemplated disciplinary proceedings.

4

28.10.2020

Charge sheet is issued against the respondent

No.1.

5

28.10.2020

Government of India confirms aforesaid order of

suspension.

6

25.11.2020

Period of suspension is extended by the State

Government for a period of 60 days w.e.f.

27.11.2020.

7

11.12.2020

Review Committee constituted in terms of Rule

3(8)(c) of Rules of 1969 recommend extension

of suspension period for 60 days beyond

27.01.2021.

8

29.12.2020

Government of India rejected the appeal

preferred by the respondent No.1 against his

suspension.

4,

The Tribunal while allowing the said OA found that before expiry

of initial period of suspension of 60 days, no Review Committee as per

Rule 3(8)(c) was held, and therefore, extension of suspension period

beyond 60 days made by State Government by order dated 25.11.2020

was without recommendation of Review Committee, and thus, non est in

the eyes of law. Resultantly, Tribunal quashed the order of suspension and

all the subsequent orders extending period of suspension.

5.

The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioners/State

in this petition is that the Review Committee is not required to be

- 4 -

consulted at the stage of first extension beyond initial period of

suspension of 60 days. It is further urged by State that Review

Committee’s jurisdiction commences at the stage of all subsequent

extensions and not at the stage of first extension. By referring to the

terminology used in Rule 3(8)(a) of Rules of 1969, it is contended that

since the order of suspension dated 29.09.2020 was extended by the

Competent Authority before expiry of initial period of 60 days and later

by the Review Committee on 11.12.2020 for the period beyond

27.01.2021, the order of suspension dated 29.09.2020 did not lapse

automatically after expiry of 60 days. It is also submitted that Rule 3(8)

(a) while prescribing the initial period of suspension as 60 days excludes

from its operation and sweep, cases where suspension order is extended

once by the State Government.

6.

Pertinently, the pleadings submitted by the State before the

Tribunal by way of two replies reveal that Review Committee was not

consulted by the Competent Authority when first order dated 25.11.2020

was passed for extending period of suspension beyond initial period of 60

days which was expiring on 27.11.2020. State, thus, admits that

recommendations of Review Committee were obtained by the Competent

Authority for the purpose of second extension w.e.f. 27.01.2021, but not

for the first extension beyond the initial period of 60 days.

6.1

Thus, questions which beg for an answer herein are:-

- 5 -

(a) Whether initial period of suspension of 60 days can be extended by

Competent Authority without recommendation of Review Committee or

not ?

(b) Can this initial default of absence of recommendation of Review

Committee be validated by subsequent reviews based on