Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 522 (JK)

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2015-09-30

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 8.3.2013 whereby the period of suspension of the petitioner has further been extended for a period of 180 days w.e.f., 2.3.2013 to 28.8.2013. With a view to understand the controversy in its correct perspective, it is necessary to give in brief a few material facts. 2. An FIR came to be registered against the petitioner, which led to his arrest on 29.11.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail. The respondents on account of his arrest and involvement in the case placed him under suspension vide order dated 12.12.2011 w.e.f. the date of detention of the petitioner in terms of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal, Rules, 1965 [hereinafter to be referred to as CCS (CCA) Rules]. 3. This period of suspension was subsequently extended from time to time and finally the last order, extending the period of suspension, was passed on 8.3.2013 whereby the period of suspension of the petitioner has been extended for a further period of 180 days w.e.f., 2.3.2013 to 28.8.2013. 4. The precise case of the petitioner in the present case is that according to the Sub-rule 6 of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules (supra), the order of suspension could have been extended, modified or revoked provided the said order was passed before the expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension. 5. For purposes of reference, the said rule is reproduced hereunder: "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." 6. It is stated that the order impugned dated 19th of Sept., 2013, extending the period of suspension is non est in the eyes of law inasmuch as the order ought to have been passed before the expiry of the extended period of suspension. 7. This issue is no longer res integra. It is stated that the order impugned dated 19th of Sept., 2013, extending the period of suspension is non est in the eyes of law inasmuch as the order ought to have been passed before the expiry of the extended period of suspension. 7. This issue is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222 in paragraph 10 held as under: "10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the respondent and when the petitioner's case came up for review on 20-10-2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under sub-rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days." 8. In view of the clear rule position as well as the settled proposition of law, I am of the view that the order impugned, extending the period of suspension, cannot be sustained in law. The same is, therefore, set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner would be permitted to join his duties and would be entitled to other consequential benefits. Disposed of accordingly along with connected applications.