JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Commandant 62 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, is aggrieved by the order dated 27th November, 2009, Annexure-6, whereunder he has been placed under suspension has challenged his continued suspension by filing the present writ case on the ground that after expiry of the period of 90 days his suspension having not been reviewed and extended is violative of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") which inter alia provides that the order of suspension made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of the Rules shall not be valid beyond 90 days unless it is reviewed and extended by the competent authority on the recommendation of the Review Committee for a further period of 90 days before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension. 3. Aforesaid submission is being refuted by the counsel for the Union of India with reference to the submissions made in the counter affidavit and the order dated 23rd March, 2010, whereunder the suspension of the petitioner was reviewed with direction to continue the suspension for a further period of 180 days with effect from 25.2.2010. Close perusal of the order dated 23rd March, 2010 indicates that petitioner was suspended with effect from 27.11.2009 and the Review Committee considered his case on 24.2.2010 in terms of the guidelines contained in Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), memorandum dated 7.1.2004 read with the provisions contained in sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the Rules and decided to extend the suspension of the petitioner for a further period of 180 days with effect from 25.2.2010. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period of 90 days from the effective date of suspension i.e. 27.11.2009 expired on 25.2.2010 and before that date his case was reviewed by the Review Committee on 24.2.2010 and the decision was taken to extend the suspension on 25.2.2010 but the said decision was communicated on 23.3.2010 the date on which the order was made and issued and as the order was made and issued beyond 90 days, his suspension became violative of sub-rules (6) and (7) and this Court in appreciation of such submission should quash the order. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of S. Partap Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 72, paragraph-48, State of Punjab vs. Khemi Ram, reported in A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 214, paragraph-16 and State of M.P. vs. L.P. Tiwari, reported in A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 2175, at page 2178 to buttress his submission that the order made in the file has no relevance unless the order is communicated. The effective date of communication of an order is the date of issue. In the instant case, the order extending the suspension of the petitioner was made and issued on 23rd March, 2010 i.e. much beyond the period of 90 days from 27.11.2009 and thereby the continued suspension of the petitioner after 25.2.2010 is violative of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the Rules. In appreciation of such submission the order suspending the petitioner dated 27th November, 2009, Annexure-6 is quashed. 5. While this order was being dictated, learned counsel for the Union of India objected to the maintainability of the writ petition in the Patna High Court and submitted that the original suspension order dated 27.11.2009 as also the order dated 23rd March, 2010 extending the suspension were made and issued at Delhi, as such, this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against those orders. 6. Perusal of the two orders indicates that both the orders were made at Delhi but communicated to the petitioner at his Patna residence, which is evident from the two orders itself. 6. Perusal of the two orders indicates that both the orders were made at Delhi but communicated to the petitioner at his Patna residence, which is evident from the two orders itself. In the circumstances, the part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Bihar and this Court has jurisdiction to consider the validity of the two orders in view of the provisions contained in sub-clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India which empowers the High Court to consider the validity of the cause in which the part of cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Srivastav vs. Union of India, reported in (2006)6 SCC 207 . 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.