Judgment :- (Writ petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in O.A.No.97 of 2005 dated 09.09.2005 on the file of the third respondent upholding the order of the second respondent in Office Memorandum No.PF/83/FN dated 31.01.2003 and quash the said two orders and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the attendant benefits.) P.K. Misra, J. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. Though the matter was listed for considering the grant of stay, since the question raised in the Miscellaneous petition is the same as in the main writ petition and since the entire matter depends upon the interpretation of the rules, by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.01.2003 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 10(1) of the CCS CCA Rules, 1965. Thereafter, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed by order dated 29.01.2004 with effect from 31.01.2004. However, the appellate authority directed a de novo enquiry by order dated 26.08.2004. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 10(3), the petitioner is deemed to have continued under suspension on and from the date of the original order of compulsory retirement by virtue of the order relating to de novo enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original Application No.97 of 2005 before the third respondent Tribunal challenging the continuation of the suspension order beyond a period of 90 days from the date of suspension, that is to say, from 26.08.2004. 4. The main contention of the petitioner was on the basis of the provisions contained in Rule 10 (7), which came to be incorporated under the above said rules by amendment dated 23.12.2003. There is no dispute that such amendment of rules is applicable. For consideration of the question raised in the writ petition, it is necessary to extract the relevant rules viz. 10 (1), 10 (3), 10 (5), 10 (6) and 10 (7):- “10. There is no dispute that such amendment of rules is applicable. For consideration of the question raised in the writ petition, it is necessary to extract the relevant rules viz. 10 (1), 10 (3), 10 (5), 10 (6) and 10 (7):- “10. (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an Assistant Accountant-General or equivalent (other than a regular member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force, on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. (5) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. (5) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. (b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings. (c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 days from the date of order 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 180 days at a time. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule 5 (a), 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 90 days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of 90 days.” 5. Even though the Tribunal had specifically referred to Rules 10 (6) and 10 (7), it came to the conclusion that there is no specific provision in Rule 10 (6) to the effect that if the suspension order is not extended, the suspension of the petitioner comes to an end automatically on the expiry of the period of 90 days. Even though the Tribunal had specifically referred to Rules 10 (6) and 10 (7), it came to the conclusion that there is no specific provision in Rule 10 (6) to the effect that if the suspension order is not extended, the suspension of the petitioner comes to an end automatically on the expiry of the period of 90 days. It is, therefore, obvious that the Tribunal has not placed any reliance upon Rule 10 (7) mainly because in Rule 10 (7), a reference is made to Rules 10 (1) and 10(2) and there is no specific reference to Rule 10(3). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that Rules 10 (6) and 10 (7) which have been introduced by way of amendment, should not be read in isolation and should be read together. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suspension can be made either under Rule 10 (1) or Rule 10 (2). The provision contained in Rule 10 (3) is only deemed continuation of suspension made under Rule 10 (1) or Rule 10 (2), if subsequently order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside and a direction is issued for de novo enquiry. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the provision contained in Rule 10 (3) does not have any application as it is only a deemed continuation of a suspension order already made either under Rule 10 (1) or 10 (2). Therefore, it is submitted that the specific provision contained in Rule 10(7) is also applicable to the deemed continuation of a suspension order as contemplated in Rule 10 (3). 7. In this connection, the learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that the main intention of introducing Rule 10 (6) is that a person should not be continued under indefinite suspension and the appropriate authority should undertake a review after 90 days so that the person need not be continued under indefinite suspension. Since the intention is to have a review at a specified period and not to encourage the indefinite suspension, both provisions should be read together as otherwise, the intention of the rule making authority will be lost sight of. 8. Since the intention is to have a review at a specified period and not to encourage the indefinite suspension, both provisions should be read together as otherwise, the intention of the rule making authority will be lost sight of. 8. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Rule 10 (7) makes it applicable only to a suspension under Rule 10 (1) or Rule 10 (2) and since there is no reference in Rule 10 (7) to any suspension under 10(3), such rule should not be applied to the suspension, which is deemed to be continued by virtue of rule 10(3). 9. We are unable to accept the submission made by the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions contained in Rule 10 (3) must be read in a harmonious manner with Rules 10 (1) and 10 (2). The order of suspension envisaged under Rule 10 (3) is attracted only in a situation where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is subsequently set aside and the matter is remitted back for further enquiry or action. Thus, in such an event, the order of suspension under Rules 10 (1) or 10 (2), as the case may be, shall be deemed to have continued to be in force. This is not an independent power of suspension; but the necessary effect of a review of the order of punishment by the appellate authority. Therefore, in our opinion, any order deemed to have been passed under Rule 10 (3) or an order made under Rule 10 (1) or 10 (2), as the case may be, is required to be reviewed as contemplated under Rule 10 (6) and if such order is not reviewed within the time stipulated, the consequences envisaged under Rule 10 (7) automatically come into effect. In such view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 10. In the course of argument, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent pointed out that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 09.09.2005, the review before the concerned authority has taken place and the authority has passed an order of continuation of suspension. 10. In the course of argument, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent pointed out that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 09.09.2005, the review before the concerned authority has taken place and the authority has passed an order of continuation of suspension. However, in view of the fact as per the statutory rules, the suspension had come to an end long before such order was passed, continuation order will not be effective. However, the present order shall not stand in the way of the competent authority passing any fresh order of suspension in accordance with the relevant provisions. It is made clear that the present order by us should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. 11. It is expected that the departmental authority shall complete the proceedings within a reasonable period and the delinquent is expected to cooperate in the early disposal of the departmental proceedings. Since the order of suspension has been quashed, the petitioner is deemed to have been in service for the said period. 12. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P is closed.