Union Of India & Ors vs Dipak Mali

September, 2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High 2

Court at Jabalpur in Writ Petition (S) No.2569 of

2005, dismissing the same. The respondent, who was

working as a Civilian Motor Driver-II in the

establishment of the Senior Quality Assurance

Officer, Senior Quality Assurance Establishment

(Armaments) in the Gun Carriage Factory at

Jabalpur, was suspended pending inquiry on 10th

August, 2002. Under Rule 10 of the Central Civil

Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by Notification

dated 23rd December, 2003, Sub-Rules (6) and (7)

were inserted. As the same are relevant to the

facts of this case, the same are extracted

hereinbelow :

"(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rules shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the date of order of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purposes 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 3

not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty dates at a time.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules 5, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub- rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days."

2. The aforesaid amendment came into effect from

2nd June, 2004, but as a Review Committee was not

constituted, the respondent's suspension was not

reviewed as required by the amended Rules. The

respondent, therefore, claimed that the suspension

order must be deemed to have lapsed and

accordingly, he approached the Central

Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.540/2004

for a declaration that the suspension order dated

10th August, 2002, became invalid on the expiry of

90 days from the date on which Sub-Rules (6) and

(7) of Rule 10 came into force, since the same had

not been extended by the Review Committee. 4

3. There is no dispute that the suspension of the

respondent was not extended. The Tribunal,

accordingly, allowed the application filed by the

respondent and by its order dated 29th March, 2005,

quashed the suspension order dated 10th August,

2002. The said order of the Tribunal was

questioned before the High Court on the ground that

while Sub-Rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 came into

force only on 2nd June, 2004, the application had

been made prematurely in July, 2004 even before the

expiry of three months. It was contended that

since the matter was subjudice on account of the

pendency of the Original Application filed by the

respondent before the expiry of 90 days from 2nd

June, 2004, the petitioners were unable to review

the respondent's case.

4. Dealing with the said contention the High Court

held that since there was no interim stay in

O.A.No.540/2004 filed by the respondent, there was 5

nothing to prevent the petitioners from reviewing

the suspension within 90 days from 2nd June, 2004.

On such ground the High Court dismissed the writ

petition.

5. It is against the said order of the High Court

that the present Special Leave Petition has been

filed.

6. On behalf of the Union of India, it was not

denied that the amended provisions of Rule 10 came

into effect from 2nd June, 2004, and that the case

of the Respondent was reviewed on 20th October,

2004, beyond the period envisaged under Sub-rule

(6) thereof. It was, however, contended that the

delay in conducting the review was not on account

of any laches on the part of the petitioners, but

having regard to the fact that the Respondent filed

OA No.540 of 2004, before the Central

Administrative Tribunal in July, 2004, and the same

was disposed of by the Tribunal on 18th August, 6

2004, during which period the petitioner was unable

to take any action under Rule 10 in view of the

provisions of Section 19(4) of the Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides that where an

application has been admitted by a Tribunal under

Sub-section (3), every proceeding under the

relevant service rules as to redressal of

grievances in relation to the subject matter of

such application pending immediately before such

admission, shall abate, and save as otherwise

provided by the Tribunal, no appeal or revision in

relation to such matter shall thereafter be

entertained under such rules.

7. It was submitted that since the proceedings

were pending before the Tribunal, the Petitioner

had no option but to stay its hands in regard to

the proceedings against the respondent. It was

also submitted that on 20th October, 2004, when the

Reviewing Committee took up the Petitioners' case, 7

it extended the period of suspension, which was

again extended thereafter by order dated 8th April,

2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that having regard to the above, the order passed

by the High Court upholding the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal was liable to be

set aside along with the order passed by the

learned Tribunal.

8. On behalf of the Respondents, it was urged that

Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,

1985, did not contemplate stay but abatement of

proceedings before other authorities once an

application was admitted by the Central

Administrative Tribunal. By virtue of Sub-section

(4) of Section 19, on admission of such application

proceedings pending before other Courts and Forums

would abate unless otherwise directed by the

Tribunal.

8

9. Learned counsel contended that in the absence

of any stay, nothing prevented the petitioners from

reviewing the petitioner's case and the explanation

forthcoming for not taking steps under Sub-section

(6) of Section 7 must inure to the benefit of the

respondent.

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 20th

October, 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 9

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.

11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the

petitioner, Union of India as to the cause of delay

in reviewing the Respondent's case, is not very

convincing. Section 19(4) of the Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of

proceedings once an original application under the

said Act was admitted. In this case, what is

important is that by operation of Sub-rule (6) of

Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension

would not survive after the period of 90 days

unless it was extended after review. Since

admittedly the review had not been conducted within

90 days from the date of suspension, it became

invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any 10

review nor extension within the said period of 90

days. Subsequent review and extension, in our

view, could not revive the order which had already

become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the

date of suspension.

12. For the said reasons, we are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned order of the High Court

and the Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,

dismissed.

13. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

................................................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU) New Delhi, Dated: December 15, 2009.