Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 92 (UTT)

SUNIL KUMAR BHATNAGAR v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

2015-02-27

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2015
JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue an appropriate writ or writs particularity a writ in the nature of Certiorari and quash the impugned office order No. RK/PER/S.K. Bhatnagar/Office of the Cantt Board Roorkee, Dated 16th August, 2014 of the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Roorkee. (ii) Issue a writ or writs in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No. 1 and 2, to take the petitioner on duty with full benefits of his service with retrospective effect after the lapse of 90 days from the date of suspension i.e. 6th October, 2013/date of joining letter 17th February, 2014 after the release from custody.” 2. Petitioner was appointed as an Overseer by the Cantonment Board, Roorkee. He was later promoted in the year 2007 as an Assistant Engineer. On 05.10.2013, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner came to be arrested on 06.10.2013 and he was detained. Petitioner came to be suspended by order dated 10.10.2013 purporting to act under Section 10-A 2(a) of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Petitioner obtained order of bail from this Court on 10.02.2014. Pursuant to the same, he was, apparently, released from jail and he made a representation to the CEO of the Cantonment Board on 17.02.2014. The Cantonment Board, it appears, sent a letter to the CBI on 04.04.2014 seeking their views. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.04.2014, the CBI at Dehradun sent its No Objection to the Cantonment Board taking a decision on its own in regard to the revocation of the suspension of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that all the elected members of the Cantonment Board sent a letter to the President/Chairman of the Board regarding the revocation of the petitioner by communication dated 04.06.2014. Petitioner also seeks to harness to his advantage communication dated 04.07.2014 sent by two ex Vice Presidents, Chairman and elected members of the Cantonment Board. Petitioner also sent a representation dated 10.07.2014 regarding his revocation. He further sent representations dated 02.08.2014 and 08.08.2014. By order dated 16.08.2014, which is the impugned order, the suspension order is extended for a period of 180 days with effect from 17.08.2014. 3. We have heard Mr. Petitioner also sent a representation dated 10.07.2014 regarding his revocation. He further sent representations dated 02.08.2014 and 08.08.2014. By order dated 16.08.2014, which is the impugned order, the suspension order is extended for a period of 180 days with effect from 17.08.2014. 3. We have heard Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, as also, Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board. 4. Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit before us that reliance placed by the respondents on the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 is misplaced and the Rules, which are applicable, are the 1937 Rules. According to him, the Rules require that if there is an order of suspension, it must be reviewed and if it is to be extended, it should be so done within a period of 90 days. Attention was drawn to Rule 10 (6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Rule 10(6) is extracted 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.]” 5. Attention was drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222 (Union of India and others Vs. Dipak Mali), wherein the Apex Court has, inter alia, held as follows: “10. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.]” 5. Attention was drawn to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222 (Union of India and others Vs. Dipak Mali), wherein the Apex Court has, inter alia, held as follows: “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 petitioners’ 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.” 6. In other words, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 are applicable, then the review should have been undertaken before the expiry of 90 days from the date of the order of suspension. It is submitted that such exercise was not undertaken within a period of 90 days. There was no communication of any such order on review. When his attention was drawn to the order dated 16.08.2014, wherein reference was made to extension being made of the suspension till 17.08.2014, he would submit that such an order was not passed and there was no communication at any stage of any such decision. He would next contend that actually the requirement for review within 90 days flows from the Fundamental Rules. He drew our attention to Annexure-10, which, inter alia, reads as follows: “(12) The administrative Reforms Commission, in their Report on Personnel Administration have made the following observations in Chapter IX (Conduct and Discipline) of the Report:- “Officials remain, at present under suspension of considerable long periods, because of the delays in the decision of their cases. He drew our attention to Annexure-10, which, inter alia, reads as follows: “(12) The administrative Reforms Commission, in their Report on Personnel Administration have made the following observations in Chapter IX (Conduct and Discipline) of the Report:- “Officials remain, at present under suspension of considerable long periods, because of the delays in the decision of their cases. Instructions exist that, as far as possible, investigation in disciplinary cases should be completed and a charge-sheet filed in the court of law in cases of prosecution or the memorandum of charges served in the case of departmental proceedings, within a period of six months; if cases are likely to be delayed, the question of revocation of the suspension order should be examined, These instructions have been not been followed in very many cases, and this indicates a lack of a sense of urgency among those handling the cases. We recommend that no person should ordinarily be kept under suspension for a period of more than three months except in cases pending in the courts. If reinstatement of the officials is considered to be fraught with risk of the evidence of the departmental case being tempered with or the departmental proceedings being hampered, the official should be transferred to any other place where no such risk exists. Approval of a higher authority should be obtained for keeping officials under suspension beyond period of three months”. 2. This recommendation has been examined by the Government. The Ministry of Home Affairs (now Department of Personnel) Office Memorandum No.221/18/56-AVD, dated the 7th September, 1965, had already emphasized the need for quick disposal of cases of Government Servants under suspension and it was desired in particular that the investigation in such cases should be completed, and a charge sheet filed in the court in cases of prosecution, or served on the Government servant, in cases of departmental proceedings, within six months. These instructions were further elaborated in Department of Personnel Office Memorandum No.39/39/70-Estt (A), dated the 4th February, 1971, as a result of discussion in the National Council of the Joint Consultative Machinery. These instructions were further elaborated in Department of Personnel Office Memorandum No.39/39/70-Estt (A), dated the 4th February, 1971, as a result of discussion in the National Council of the Joint Consultative Machinery. It was laid down in these instructions that every effort should be made to file the charge sheet in court or serve the charge sheet on the Government servant, as the case may be, within three months of the date of suspension and in cases in which it might not be possible to do so, the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the next higher authority explaining the reasons for the delay. 3. It would thus be observed that Government have already reduced the period of suspension during investigation, barring exceptional cases which are to be reported to the higher authority, from six months to three months. It has now been decided that while the orders contained pending in courts, in the Office Memorandum of 4th February, 1971 would continue to be operative in regard to cases pending in courts in respect of the period of suspension pending investigation before the filling of a charge sheet in the court as also in respect of serving of the charge sheet on the Government servant in cases of departmental proceedings, in cases other than those pending in courts the total period of suspension viz., both in respect of investigation and disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily 5 exceed six months. In exceptional cases where it is not possible to adhere to this time limit, the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the next higher authority, explaining the reasons for the delay. 4. This decision may be brought to the notice of all administrative authorities in or under the Ministry of Finance, etc. for information and appropriate action.” 7. In this connection, he would submit that under Rule 3 of the Rules, the Fundamental Rules are made applicable. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as follows: “3. Chapter I to XI of the Fundamental Rules and the Supplementary Rules made under the rules contained in the said chapters, as continued in force and the [Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964] shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with these Rules, be deemed to apply to all servants. Rule 3 of the Rules reads as follows: “3. Chapter I to XI of the Fundamental Rules and the Supplementary Rules made under the rules contained in the said chapters, as continued in force and the [Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964] shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with these Rules, be deemed to apply to all servants. The powers of Local Government referred to in the said fundamental Rules shall be exercised in respect of such servants by the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, therefore, that it is a requirement of the law that a review should be undertaken of the suspension so as to obviate prolonged and arbitrary keeping out of a person from service with all its attendant evils. He would submit that suspension can never be a punishment. He would also dwell on the merits of the case and attempt to contend that the petitioner was not at all guilty. He would finally also draw our attention to an unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India though its Secretary & another). He would point out that the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed as follows: “14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges / Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer / employee; if the Memorandum of Charges / Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the aforementioned direction, the matter is beyond the region of doubt that having remained under suspension for a period far more than three months, the petitioner must be granted relief in this case. 10. The learned counsel for the Cantonment Board Mr. Mer, on the other hand, contended as follows:- The writ petitioner is an employee of the Cantonment Board; petitioner is not a government servant; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 are applicable to government servants. The word ‘government servants’ is defined in Rule 2(h) of the Rules, which reads as follows:- “(h) “Government servant” means a person who— (i) is a member of a Service or holds a civil post under the Union, and includes any such person on foreign service or whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of a State Government, or a local or other authority; (ii) is a member of a Service or holds a civil post under a State Government and whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central Government; (iii) is in the service of a local or other authority and whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central Government;” 11. Therefore, reliance placed on Rule 10 is completely misplaced. As far as the employees of the Cantonment Board are concerned, they are governed by the Rules. Therefore, reliance placed on Rule 10 is completely misplaced. As far as the employees of the Cantonment Board are concerned, they are governed by the Rules. Under the Rules, learned counsel for the Board drew our attention to Rule 10-A. Rule 10-A of the Rules reads is as follows: “10-A. (1) The appointing authority may place a servant under suspension— (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial; (2) A servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority— (a) With effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty eight hours; (b) With effect from the date of his conviction if in the event of a conviction for an offence he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsory retired consequent to such conviction. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further enquiry or action or with any direction, 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. (4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed the servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders: Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of case. (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 servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection with any disciplinary proceedings or otherwise) and any other disciplinary proceedings are 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 servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all or any 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.” 12. Relying on Rule 10-A (5) (a) of the Rules, learned counsel for the Board would submit that an order of suspension, which is passed under the said Rules, will hold good, unless it is modified or revoked. Relying on Rule 10-A (5) (a) of the Rules, learned counsel for the Board would submit that an order of suspension, which is passed under the said Rules, will hold good, unless it is modified or revoked. He would submit that the mistake in law cannot be availed of by the petitioner to contend that since reference is made to the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in the impugned order, even proceeding on the basis that no review was undertaken within a period of 90 days as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not fatal to the case of the respondents. When this Court asked, whether an order was passed extending the suspension till 17.08.2014, on instructions, it was submitted that, indeed, a decision was taken and a File regarding the same was made available to us. The following decision was also brought to our notice: “AGENDA BY CIRCULAR DATED 17-05-2014 REVIEW OF SHRI S.K. BHATNAGAR, A.E. (U/S) CANTT. BOARD, ROORKEE: To consider the suspension of Shri S.K. Bhatnagar (U/S) AE to be review for further extended of three months w.e.f. 17-05-2014 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT BOARD, ROORKEE RESOLUTION : Considered and approved. 1. Brig. D.V. Satia - President Cantt Board, Roorkee 2. Brig. Sunil Takiar - Ex-Officio Member 3. Col. S. Pradhan SM - Nominated Member 4. Lt. Col. V. Gulia CO CIW - Nominated Member 5. Maj. Deepak Tyagi GE (MES) -Ex-Officio Member 6. Shri Gauri Shanker - V.P., Cantt. Board, Roorkee 7. Shri Deepak - Elected Member 8. Shri Gupta Rakesh - Elected Member 9. Smt. Suman - Elected Member 10. Shri Arora Deepak - Elected Member 11. Smt. Aggarwal Neelam - Elected Member” 13. It is submitted that the review was undertaken. He would submit that even proceeding on the basis that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 were not applicable, the Court must proceed on the actual legal position which is that being an employee of the Cantonment Board, the petitioner is governed only by the Rules, and the position under Rule 10-A(5)(a) was reiterated. As regards the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, he would submit that it related to a case under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the said direction cannot apply to the case falling under Rule 10-A(5)(a) of the Rules. 14. As regards the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, he would submit that it related to a case under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the said direction cannot apply to the case falling under Rule 10-A(5)(a) of the Rules. 14. He would also submit, when asked whether there was any recommendation by the Committee mentioned in Rule 10(6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, that the Board itself is a Committee and there was no other recommendation. We notice that as far as the persons, who have signed in the Agenda dated 17.05.2014, one person clearly seems to have signed on 22.5.2014 and as far as other members of the Board are concerned, they have not appended the date beneath their signatures. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ambrish Kumar would reiterate his case and he would submit that the document dated 17.5.2014, which is made available, is a clear concoction by the respondents. In this connection, he drew our attention particularly to communication dated 04.07.2014, wherein inter alia it states as follows: “On the advice of PCB, the legal advice from the CBLA, Cantt, Board Roorkee has been obtained and the advice has been forwarded to PCB vide NOTE SHEET No. RK/PER/179 dated 19-05-2014.” 16. Mr. Mer would contend that the Government clarification is not applicable to the employees of the Cantonment Board. In this 10 connection, he drew our attention to the following commentary, which is made available under the Rules: “As the Cantonment Fund Servants are not Central Govt. Servants they are not governed as a rule by the orders/instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence from time to time for the Defence Civilians Employees unless they are extended to the Cantonment Board employees with the prior approval of Ministry of Defence (Finance).” 17. So, according to him, unless there is a specific order, by which the provisions of the Fundamental Rules are made applicable to the Cantonment Board employees, the Defence Civilian employees working in the Cantonment Board with the prior approval of the Ministry of Defence, it is not applicable. 18. To the same, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Notification relied on by the petitioner has been issued by the Government of India and, therefore, it is applicable. 19. 18. To the same, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Notification relied on by the petitioner has been issued by the Government of India and, therefore, it is applicable. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1157 (Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V. Sivaraman) for the proposition that the suspension order will continue to hold good. 20. We have already noted the circumstances leading to the suspension of the petitioner. Petitioner undoubtedly came to be detained on the basis of an FIR, which is lodged by the CBI and he has been suspended on 10.10.2013. The first question to be decided is whether the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 are applicable or the Rules are applicable. Petitioner is not a government servant falling under the CCS Rules. Therefore, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 are as such not applicable. Rule 10, in which an amendment was carried out, by which Sub Rules (6) and (7) were added, are not applicable to the petitioner. As far as the petitioner is concerned, since admittedly, the petitioner was governed by the Rules in the case of suspension under Rule 10-A(5)(a), the suspension unless it is revoked or modified, it will remain in force. 21. The next question to be considered is, whether even if the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not applicable, which, in fact, is the case in the petition, whether under the Fundamental Rules, there is a requirement to carry out review of the suspension. What is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not any specific Rule, which mandate a review within three months. On the other hand, it is clear that what is referred to are executive orders issued by the Government of India. Apparently, in exercise of powers under Article 72, it is well settled that in areas, where the Rules are silent or where there is a gap, it is always open to the Government to fill up the gap and supplement the Rules by issuing executive instructions, which would then govern the government employees. It is apparently in exercise of such powers that Government of India has indeed issued the instructions, which are relied on by the petitioner. It is apparently in exercise of such powers that Government of India has indeed issued the instructions, which are relied on by the petitioner. In other words, there is no requirement under the Rules as such, which mandates review of the suspension within three months. No doubt the period for review, which was earlier six months, was shortened to three months. But since such a requirement flows not under the Fundamental Rules, the question of complying with any such requirement does not appear to us to arise in law. We may also note that, in fact, in Rule 3, what is provided, is the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules as contained in the Rules and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and insofar as they are not inconsistent with these Rules, they will be deemed to apply to the servants. It could be contended that when Rule 10-A(5)(a) of the Rules provides that without undertaking any review, the order of suspension will continue to hold good till it is modified or revoked, a requirement that there should be a review and the failure of holding of which will result in the suspension becoming invalid may appear to be inconsistent. When we put this issue to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ambrish Kumar would contend that it is not a case of inconsistency. Moreover, he would submit that the inconsistency, which is predicated in the Rules, is not between the Fundamental Rules and the Rules, but is between the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the Rules. In other words, even if there is inconsistency, the Fundamental Rules will apply. For the purpose of deciding this case, in our view, it should be sufficient for us if we rest our decision on the reasoning that there is no requirement under the Rules or even under the Fundamental Rules that the review must be undertaken of the suspension within a period of three months. Requirement under the Central Government instructions, which may create rights and also liabilities, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be imported in to bind the employees of the Cantonment Board or the Cantonment Board. Requirement under the Central Government instructions, which may create rights and also liabilities, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be imported in to bind the employees of the Cantonment Board or the Cantonment Board. Since that is not contemplated under Rule 3 as otherwise the Rule 3 could have been worded as importing even the executive instructions issued by the Government of India as applicable to the Cantonment Board employees. Such not being the case, the inevitable result is, neither is the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 applicable nor are the instructions relied on by the petitioner as such applicable. Therefore, we are left with Rule 10-A(5)(a) of the Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner is governed by the said Rules. Even if we were inclined to take the view that there is no review undertaken within 90 days as required under Rule 10 (6) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and also the executive instructions relied on by the petitioner, it will not have the fatal impact on the validity of the suspension order dated 10.10.2013. Even if we were inclined to set aside the order which is challenged by the petitioner, the original order of suspension dated 10.10.2013 would continue to hold good and the suspension would continue to remain in force legally. 22. Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was based on Rule 10-A(5)(b). We are of the opinion that Rule 10(5)(b) is absolutely not applicable as Rule 10-A(5)(b) would arise for being applied only in a situation, where there is an order of suspension and while it is in force, another disciplinary proceedings is undertaken and in which contingency, Rule 10-A(5)(b) empowers the authority to order that the suspension order will continue till the conclusion of the second proceeding. But such contingency itself does not arise and Rule 10-A(5)(b) has no role at all in the facts of this case. 23. But such contingency itself does not arise and Rule 10-A(5)(b) has no role at all in the facts of this case. 23. As far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is concerned, we are of the view that it arose in the context of the facts, which have been set out in the judgment, which apparently arose under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which predicates extension of suspension and we would with great respect hold that it is not meant to apply in all situations, where the Rules are different. 24. The fact that the respondents are taking the stand that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 are not applicable is not attacked on any ground like promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation being defeated. In other words, there is no case that because the order of extension was passed, the petitioner was put to any injury in view of the actual legal position which we have already adverted to. 25. It is to be observed that an order of suspension is not to be lightly passed or that it should be kept alive for a period in excess of its requirement, which is a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. But as far as this case is concerned, we would think that on the reasoning, which we have referred to above, the petitioner cannot be granted relief for the reasons, which have been given above, though we are also not too sure that the requirement of Sub Rule (6) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 that there should be a recommendation by the Committee also was satisfied. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.