JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, while holding the post of Deputy Director (Science Promotion), was additionally entrusted with the charge of the Branch Officer and the D.D.O. of Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) under the Directorate of School Education, Tripura. 3. During that time, the Disciplinary Authority contemplated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and she was suspended under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 with immediate effect by the order under No. F.13 (2-6) SE/GL-1/2013 dated 30.08.2014. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the said order and the subsequent orders passed for continuation of the order after the review. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has stoutly contended that none of those orders of the review are valid inasmuch as the first review was done after expiry of the 90 days and consequentially all these orders of the review are bad in law. To buttress his point, he has referred to Subrule 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of the said Rules, which have been adopted by the Government of Tripura as would be apparent from the note-7 dated 24.05.2016 [Annexure-11 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner] signed by the Joint Secretary, G.A. (A.R) Department and disclosed under Section 6 of the RTI Act to the husband of the petitioner. In the said note-7, it has been asserted without any ambiguity as under: “2. Further it is clarified that Government of Tripura has been following CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 for handling disciplinary matters. Sub-rule 6 & 7 of the Rule 10 are very much part of CCS (CC&A) Rules. The Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training amended the Rule 10 and inserted Sub-rules 6 & 7 vide Notification No. F.11012/4/2003-Estt.(A) dated, the 23rd December 2003 (copy placed at Flag-“B”). Earlier position i.e. prior to 2004 was that unless the competent authority issued an order of revocation, the employee continued to remain suspended. This position has undergone a modification after amendment of the Rule 10 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules. 3. The Administrative Department is advised to take action as per amended CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.” 5. Earlier position i.e. prior to 2004 was that unless the competent authority issued an order of revocation, the employee continued to remain suspended. This position has undergone a modification after amendment of the Rule 10 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules. 3. The Administrative Department is advised to take action as per amended CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.” 5. For purpose of reference both Sub-rules 6 of Rule 10 is extracted hereunder: “(6) It is apparent from the said provisions is that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under the Rule-10 shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension order before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension. On the recommendations of the Review Committee constituted for 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.” Sub-rule 7 of Rule 10 provides that order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under the sub-rule (1) or (2) of the said rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review for a further period before expiry of the ninety days. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the review has been done by the competent authority firstly on 16.07.2015, secondly on 08.10.2015 and thirdly on 11.07.2016. It is an admitted position that the order of suspension was made on 30.08.2014 and the first review was carried out on 16.07.2015 and by the order communicated to the petitioner under the memorandum dated 13.05.2015, the suspension continued. The said order was passed after review in the meeting held on 16.07.2015. It is ex-facie passed in gross violation of provisions of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 10 of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 as the first review was not carried out within 90 days as provided by the said rule. 7. However, the subsequent review was carried out within one hundred and ninety days from the first review. But since the first review is grossly illegal, the subsequent review cannot be accepted as legal. 8. The third review was taken up on 11.07.2016. 7. However, the subsequent review was carried out within one hundred and ninety days from the first review. But since the first review is grossly illegal, the subsequent review cannot be accepted as legal. 8. The third review was taken up on 11.07.2016. The decisions made by the review committee have been made available before this Court. In the third review, the ground for continuation of the suspension order as provided is as under: “Police investigation is going on against Smt. Ambalika Datta vide West Agartala P.S. Case No. 2015/WAG/060 under Sections 120(B)/409/468/471/477A/420 of IPC and section 13(2) read with Section 13 1(c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988 and she was arrested by the police for defalcation of Government money on 14th July, 2015 at 1220 hours. She was under judicial custody for more than 48 hours and released on bail. It has been ascertained from police that the charge sheet has not yet been submitted and investigation is going on.” 9. This ground is strange in the circumstances inasmuch as Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has clearly indicated that the petitioner has been given bail by this Court by the order dated 07.08.2015 in Bail Application No. 60 of 2015 on one of the conditions that the petitioner will not be tempering or any manner influencing the prosecution witnesses. Further, she is not to cause any hindrance in the investigation etc. 10. For breach of any of the conditions as laid down in the said order dated 07.08.2015, it has been clearly provided that the order of bail would be liable to be cancelled. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. has strongly contended that the review authority has the competence to consider all the aspects which would be affected by revocation of the suspension order. 11. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. has further submitted that in the departmental proceeding, the charge-sheet has been submitted and as such Sub-rule 6 and Sub-rule 7 cannot have any greater sway. Be that as it may, Sub-rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of CCS (CC & A) Rules are not the dependent clauses. Operation of those rules does not depend upon whether the charge-sheet has been filed or not. These are the independent clauses for postulating whether the order of suspension shall be allowed to continue or not. 12. Be that as it may, Sub-rules 6 & 7 of Rule 10 of CCS (CC & A) Rules are not the dependent clauses. Operation of those rules does not depend upon whether the charge-sheet has been filed or not. These are the independent clauses for postulating whether the order of suspension shall be allowed to continue or not. 12. Sub-rule-7 clearly stipulates that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of the Rule 10 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. 13. On the admitted position, there cannot be any valid reason to ratify the action under challenge. Admittedly the first review of the order of suspension which came into effect from 30.11.2014 was taken up on 16.07.2015. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. did not make any attempt to scafold his submissions by analysis of law. Thus, the suspension has continued and the third review as stated took place on 11.07.2016. On 20.01.2017 this Court had asked the respondents to produce the records for consideration. From scrutiny of the records it is found that after 11.07.2016 the suspension order has not been reviewed. 14. Again the suspension order is hit by the provisions of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 10 of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965. It has been provided that extension of the suspension order shall not be made for a period exceeding 180 days at a time. Hence, the maximum period of extension as can be made is 180 days. By any stretch of interpretation, it cannot be held that suspension after 180 days from the order of review can be deemed to have continued. 15. Since the last review was taken on 11.07.2016 and the period of suspension was extended by 180 days it came to end on 10.01.2017 and thereafter no order of suspension can be deemed to have been operating. 16. 15. Since the last review was taken on 11.07.2016 and the period of suspension was extended by 180 days it came to end on 10.01.2017 and thereafter no order of suspension can be deemed to have been operating. 16. The Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2015 SC 2389 , had occasion to observe as under: “We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet 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. 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.” [Emphasis added] 17. The said decision of the Apex Court has been referred by this Court for a very limited purpose. If the disciplinary authority is apprehensive that the petitioner might meddle with the records or abuse the process when on duty, they will be at liberty to post the petitioner in some other department to dispel their apprehension. The said decision of the Apex Court has been referred by this Court for a very limited purpose. If the disciplinary authority is apprehensive that the petitioner might meddle with the records or abuse the process when on duty, they will be at liberty to post the petitioner in some other department to dispel their apprehension. 18 Before parting, this Court is persuaded to observe that the way the review committee has concerned itself with pendency of a criminal investigation is not germane to the circumstances, inasmuch as the review committee has not at all taken into considerations the conditions for bail attached by the Court. The suspension order was not under Rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CC & A) Rules. It is ex-facie in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10(1) (a) of CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965. That is the reason why this Court has been compelled to observe that consideration was not germane to the circumstances. 19. Having held thus, the impugned order of suspension dated 30.08.2014 stands quashed forthwith. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner resume her duties without further delay. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Records produced by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. are returned. A copy of this order shall be furnished to Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. for onward transmission. There shall be no order as to costs.