2011 (8) TMI 1003 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the suspension order issued against the respondent was not valid beyond a period of 90 days of its issuance as the petitioners had breached the service rules applicable to the respondent? Held that - In any event in our opinion the submission that the original application has been filed beyond the period of limitation is not tenable. This is because the petitioners extended the period of suspension time and again albeit in breach of the service rules. It was thus a continuing cause of action for the respondent to approach the Tribunal. Therefore the petitioners have not made out any case for us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of suspension order beyond 90 days under service rules.
2. Calculation of suspension period from the effective date.
3. Consideration of limitation period for filing the original application.

Issue 1: Validity of suspension order beyond 90 days under service rules

The respondent, a government servant, was detained in custody by the Central Bureau of Investigation, leading to a suspension order issued by the petitioners. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the respondent's application, stating that the continuation of suspension beyond 90 days without review by the committee was in breach of service rules. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for the review committee to recommend the continuation of suspension within 90 days, which the petitioners failed to comply with, rendering the suspension illegal.

Issue 2: Calculation of suspension period from the effective date

The Tribunal correctly determined the effective date of suspension as the day the respondent was detained, not the date of the formal suspension order. As per Rule 10(2), the respondent was deemed suspended from the date of custody, i.e., 23-9-2004. Therefore, the review of the suspension order should have been conducted by 22-12-2004. The Tribunal's exclusion of the first day of suspension and its focus on the deemed date of suspension were deemed appropriate, leading to the conclusion that the review was indeed delayed, justifying the respondent's application.

Issue 3: Consideration of limitation period for filing the original application

The petitioners argued that the respondent's delay in filing the original application beyond 90 days should have been considered by the Tribunal. However, the Court found that the issue of limitation was not raised during the Tribunal proceedings. Additionally, the continuous extension of the suspension by the petitioners, contrary to service rules, provided a valid cause of action for the respondent to approach the Tribunal. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners failed to establish grounds for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to service rules regarding the duration and review of suspension orders for government servants. The Court's analysis focused on the effective date of suspension, the necessity of timely reviews, and the continuous cause of action for the respondent to seek redress despite the delay in filing the original application.