Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P (C) No.10967 of 2022

Damodar Sahu

&..

Petitioner

Mr. N.C. Das, Advocate

Vs.

Union of India and others

&..

Opposite Parties

Mr. D.R. Bhokta, C.G.C.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER

16.09.2022

Order No.

07.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned Central Government Counsel appearing

for the opposite party-Union of India.

3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction

to opposite parties no.3 & 4 to release the Full Salary Cost of the

petitioner w.e.f. 22.03.2018 to 06.04.2021, as admissible to him in

terms of Sub-rules 6 & 7 of Rule-10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,

within a stipulated period, by quashing the order dated 13.09.2021

under Annexure-3 and the order dated 21.04.2021 under

Annexure-5 as well as declaring the order dated 22.03.2018 under

Annexure-1 as null and void.

4.

Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that the petitioner was placed on suspension vide order

dated 22.03.2018 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-rule (1)

of Rule-10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Page 2 of 4

Appeal) Rules, 1965. It is further contended that the said order of

suspension was extended vide order dated 21.06.2018 for another

period of 180 days w.e.f. 23.06.2018 pursuant to decision of the

review committee. Therefore, such action of the authority is

arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the rules and seeks for

quashing of the same.

5.

Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned Central Government Counsel

appearing for the opposite party-Union of India vehemently

contended that the petitioner having placed on suspension, before

expiry of the period, the review committee was constituted to

review the same and after review, the period of suspension was

extended for another period of 180 days in terms of Sub-rules 6 &

7 of Rule-10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, no illegality

or irregularity has been committed by giving such extension.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going

through the records, it appears that the petitioner was placed on

suspension by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Phulbani

Division, Phulbani under Rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965 and after review made by the review committee, the

period of suspension was extended vide order dated 21.06.2018

w.e.f. 23.06.2018. It is contended that after completion of

disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was imposed with

punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 06.04.2021.

Therefore, he submitted a representation on 07.07.2021, for

release of his full salary as admissible to him, which was rejected

by opposite party no.3 vide order dated 13.09.2021. It is further

contended that since the extension of suspension was not done

within the period of 90 days as per Sub-rules-6 & 7 of Rule 10 of

Page 3 of 4

CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the order dated 21.06.2018 cannot

sustain in the eye of law. But fact remains, petitioner was placed

under suspension vide order dated 21.06.2018 and the same was

reviewed by the review committee on 14.06.2018. The purpose of

review is that the period of suspension should not be unnecessarily

prolonged but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities

manning the department feel that the suspension needs to be

continued merely because it is for a long period that does not

invalidate the suspension. This view has been supported by the

decision of the apex Court in Union of India v. Rajiv Kumar Bani

Singh (Civil Appeal No.5007 of 2003 and Appeal (civil) No.5008

of 2003, disposed of on 18.07.2003).

7.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended

that if the suspension order itself is invalidated in view of Sub-

rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of C