Judgment P. JYOTHIMANI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.2.2012 dismissing the Review Application filed by the petitioners herein to review an earlier order dated 4.11.2011 passed in O.A.No.962 of 2011. 2. The second respondent was placed under suspension by an order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the second petitioner herein. As per Rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, "the Rules"), which is as follows: "Rule 10(7). An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (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 sub0rule (2), if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days' period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later.", an order of suspension shall not be valid after a period of ninety days, unless it is extended after review. Therefore, as per the statutory rules, the order of suspension becomes invalid after ninety days from the date of suspension, to wit after 12.10.2011. The petitioners have passed an order of revocation on 14.11.2011, revoking the suspension of the second respondent with effect from 13.10.2011. 3. In the Original Application filed by the second respondent challenging the order of suspension on the ground that after lapse of ninety days as per the Rules the suspension order becomes invalid and the second respondent ought to have been reinstated, the Tribunal has quashed the order of suspension dated 14.7.2011 and directed the second respondent to be reinstated forthwith. 4. In the Review Application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, while confirming the order passed in the Original Application, has held that there is no scope for review since there is no error apparent on the face of the order passed in the Original Application. 5. 4. In the Review Application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, while confirming the order passed in the Original Application, has held that there is no scope for review since there is no error apparent on the face of the order passed in the Original Application. 5. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that while it is true that as per Rule 10(7) of the Rules, extracted above, after the period of ninety days if there was no review made by the authority the order of suspension becomes invalid, that invalidity will be operative after the period of ninety days, whereas under the order of the Tribunal which was sought to be reviewed, the Tribunal has chosen to quash the order of suspension itself, which means that the suspension would be deemed to be invalid from the date of the order dated 14.7.2011 and that is not the purport of Rule 10(7) of the Rules. 6. On the other hand, Mr.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that inasmuch as in the Review Application the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that there is no error apparent on the face of the records, this Court, by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the validity or otherwise of any of the terms of the original order passed by the Tribunal. 7. On a reference to the original order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that even though it has been the case of the second respondent throughout by relying on Rule 10 (7) of the Rules that after the period of ninety days from the date of the original order of suspension if no review was made the order of suspension becomes invalid after ninety days, the Tribunal has simply quashed the order dated 14.7.2011, which, in our considered view, as correctly submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, would go back to the date of suspension, which means that the Appointing Authority will be losing the right of suspension and that is not the intent and purport of Rule 10(7) of the Rules. 8. 8. As far as Rule 10(6) of the Rules which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the second respondent is concerned, which is as follows: "(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 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.", it only enables the Appointing Authority to review the order of suspension even before the expiry of the period of ninety days and that enabling power does not mean that after ninety days the original order of suspension will become invalid from the date of passing of the order. 9. As correctly submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, on a combined reading of Rules 10(6) and 10(7) of the Rules, extracted above, it is clear that after ninety days if the Appointing Authority does not review the order of suspension, it means that by operation of the statutory rules, the order of suspension lapses and one cannot say that it could be quashed to give a meaning as if the order of suspension is invalid from the date of its passing. Except clarifying the order passed by the Tribunal to the said effect, we are of the view that there is no other observation required. 10. Insofar as it relates to the direction given for reinstatement, it is admitted that the same is the subject matter of dispute in another Original Application as well as Contempt Petition. That apart, it is the case of the Union of India that in the meantime the post held by the second respondent itself has been transferred and the second respondent has completed five years of service in Chennai and he is liable to be transferred. Ergo, we do not want to express any opinion on the same. It is for the Tribunal to decide about the posting of the second respondent. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Ergo, we do not want to express any opinion on the same. It is for the Tribunal to decide about the posting of the second respondent. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. The order of the Tribunal in Original Application stands modified to the effect that after the lapse of ninety days from the date of the original order of suspension, the order of suspension comes to an end and it is for the petitioners to make reinstatement in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.