2009 (12) TMI 975 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the validity of a suspension order u/s Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 amended by Notification dated 23rd December, 2003, and the impact of the failure to review the suspension within the stipulated time frame as per the amended rules.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Validity of Suspension Order
The respondent, a Civilian Motor Driver-II, was suspended pending inquiry on 10th August, 2002. The suspension was not reviewed within the required timeframe as per the amended rules. The respondent claimed that the suspension order lapsed due to non-extension by the Review Committee. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the suspension order, which was challenged before the High Court.

Issue 2: Review of Suspension Order
The High Court held that the petitioners could have reviewed the suspension within 90 days from the amended rules' effective date, as there was no stay on the respondent's application. The delay in review was attributed to the respondent's application before the Tribunal, which caused a stay on the proceedings.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Administrative Tribunals Act
The Union of India argued that the proceedings were stayed due to the respondent's application before the Tribunal, as per Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The respondents contended that the absence of a stay did not prevent the petitioners from reviewing the case.

Judgment Summary:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. It was held that the suspension order became invalid after 90 days as it was not reviewed within the stipulated timeframe. The delay in review due to the respondent's application did not justify the order's revival. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for suspension reviews.