Page 1 of 6

$~10 (2021)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LPA 109/2021 & CM APPL. 10285/2021

UNION OF INDIA

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate.

DR S.K. SAXSENA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Siddharth Dias & Raushal

Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single

Judge, dated 04.02.2021. The appellant is, essentially, aggrieved by the

directions given in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment. For the sake of

convenience, the same is extracted hereafter:

Accordingly, the. suspension order dated April 05, 2019 being

invalid it is quashed, the petitioner is entitled to claim continuity

in service and salary for the period from the date of suspension

till reinstatement subject to adjustment of suspension allowance

paid to the petitioner during this period.

The petition is allowed and disposed of.”

2. The backdrop, in which the impugned judgement came to be passed,

Digitally Signed

By:HARIOM

Signing Date:05.08.2021

13:22:52

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 6

is briefly set forth hereunder.

2.1.

The respondent, who was the Director, Export Inspection Council,

New Delhi was placed under suspension, vide office order dated 05.04.2019.

2.2.

The record reveals that the Review Committee constituted by the

appellant at its meeting held on 15.07.2019 recommended that the

respondent‟s suspension be extended. This decision though was takenafter

90 days had expired from the date when the respondent was first placed

under suspension. To be noted, it is not in dispute that, the 90 days period

expired on 03.07.2019.

2.3.

It is also not in dispute that, the respondent received intimation

concerning extension of the suspension order dated 05.04.2019, via

communication dated 29.07.2019; that is, after 116 days had expired from

the date of the suspension order. It is on this basis that, the respondent

instituted a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. The learned Single Judge, as noticed hereinabove, allowed the writ

petition and quashed the suspension order dated 05.04.2019 on the ground

that, it had not been reviewed for the purpose of extension before the expiry

of the 90 days period, as provided in Rules 10(6) and 10(7)¹ of the Central

1“10. SUSPENSION

XXX

XXX

(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be

reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of

ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review

Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the

suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of

suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and

eighty days at a time.

(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2)

of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after

review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days:

Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed

suspension under sub-rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under

Digitally Signed

By:HARIOM

Signing Date:05.08.2021

13:22:52

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 6

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [in short

„CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965‟].

3.1.

Furthermore, the learned Single Judge in reaching this conclusion also

relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Union of India v. Deepak Mali (2010) 2 SCC 222.

4. Ms. Arti Bansal, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that the

direction issued by the le